Privacy @lemmy.ml ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @lemmy.ml 3 wk. ago

How to Quit Google, According to a Privacy Expert

lifehacker.com How to Quit Google, According to a Privacy Expert

Quitting Google isn't just a technical process—it's a massive project. Here's some advice on how to tackle it.

privacy @lemmy.ca Blaze @lemmy.zip 3 wk. ago

lifehacker.com /tech/how-to-quit-google-according-to-a-privacy-expert

18 comments

Recommending to move to ios from android isn't really good advice.
- Oof, seriously. And /e/os is an odd recommendation over graphene.
  
  GrapheneOS is only available for Pixel phones, so maybe that's why they suggest /e/os.
- The choose is:
  
  Apple iOS: Propably being spied by manufacturer, can be spied by NSA, can't do anything to improve this.
  
  Google Android: Know you're spied by Google, know you're spied by manufacturer, know you're spied by third-party, can be spied by NSA. But most of times you can cut them all (except NSA) off.
  
  I’m no expert, but that sounds about right, unless you de-Google your Android, which I have no experience with, never having used Android myself.
Now do Microsoft.

Remove Microsoft Windows & slap on your favorite distro. Stop communicating with Microsoft Teams & Microsoft Outlook. Run a local LLM to remove ChatGPT. Switch to LibreOffice from Microsoft Office. Move your code away from Microsoft GitHub & Microsoft npm to Codeberg, Notabug, Radicle, Nest, Darcsden, Smederee, etc. …or self-host. Find a different cloud provider than Azure (or Amazon). Play games literally any way that doesn’t involve Xbox. And it shouldn’t have to be said, but deleted your LinkedIn account—it’s just spam.
Fairly decent advice in my opinion
- Except for the statements that Apple is a better option for privacy. Its not.
  
  Any OS or app that is not opensource code can't be trusted.
  
  I agree. I don't know why people believe Apple and their privacy fasaude. There is plenty of evidence to show they're a monopoly on the data to make all the money for themselves, as well as closed source means you can't trust or verify anything they claim.
  
  We should have more "source available, but you still need to pay for it" licenses
  
  Best of both worlds, the company still gets to sell a product, and we can inspect the source, or even submit PR's (and maybe get a little kickback (but that's pie in the sky))
  
  Granted, it's super easy to remove the license restrictions with the source available
Justin Pot is no expert but expert on writing.

You've viewed 18 comments.