My goal when commenting is to counterbalance overly pro-surveilance comments, not become somebody's privacy coach and patiently explain to them all the bad things that could happen.
That takes a lot of effort and offers me zero benefit - even in real life, people that I've known for years can be stubborn and they dig in when confronted with arguments.
I'm more concerned about the effects of mass corporate surveilance on society itself and key members of society than any particular individual.
My question was regarding the individual, not society in general. I'm not so convinced the use of Google services and the way they get revenue is such a problem for society either, but that wasn't my question. I am interested in knowing whether using these alternatives instead of Google is in my self interest, when all things are taken into account and rationally balanced. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that they are.
You don't have to explain all the bad things that happen if you don't want to, but it sure seems like you are avoiding the question.
> My goal when commenting is to counterbalance overly pro-surveilance comments
And yet answering his question directly instead of avoiding it with a strange remark (home invasion, wtf?) would done a much better job at that.
I've heard the Brave New World speech many times and I buy into the concept... but I'd also like to be educated on reality. Spouting the former when someone asks for the latter is just annoying.
That takes a lot of effort and offers me zero benefit - even in real life, people that I've known for years can be stubborn and they dig in when confronted with arguments.
I'm more concerned about the effects of mass corporate surveilance on society itself and key members of society than any particular individual.