Clearing cookies makes no difference - the hash of WebGL and Canvas fingerprints stay the same.
Geographic location is a much larger issue.
On the topic of disabling, if one disabled javascript by default, one would get the immediate effect of not seeing most of the advertising on the web (outside of submarine articles).
I bet people telling others that they "need" this shit to use the web probably has significant overlap with those who say they "need" Facebook (or any other random app) or else there would be no other way to find events or things to do. Like without facebook groups, one would die! lol
However, even if it would show better results then my user agent and accept header is apprently pretty unique anyhow. But why bother.. My ip addresses do not change that often.
Google being careful with user data, may be true now. But what happens one day when Google goes bankrupt? And they have to sell all their information about their users at firesale prices.
Yahoo went bankrupt, and sold off its data about their users.
Imagine the treasure trove of information that can be gleamed from every single American's online activities. Imagine all the "innocent" people that can be blackmailed, and have their lives destroyed.
Imagine a company like no other in human history, that is amassing information on every single American, on every single person in the world, and on a scale that has never been done before. Imagine.. Google.
Google needs to be regulated. The public needs to know what they are doing. And we need restrictions on what can be done with that data. If they go bankrupt one day, then they cannot sell it. It must be destroyed. It is too dangerous to be sold off to the highest bidder.
We are the product.
If you calculate the likelihood that companyX is a) hoarding sensitive data about you AND b) isn't competent at securing said data, I'd rate Google as less of a threat because I estimate (b) is much less likely.
The best way to win is not to play. I block cookies, scripts and also don't use FB or much of Google except search & email.
Usually, when an entity motivated against our best interests is considered “competent”, we calculate that they are more of a threat. This makes fine sense to me. Why would one reason differently about Google? It looks illogical to me.
Google is a company. Google is optimized for profit, not data privacy. Quite the contrary, of course. And that isn’t changing any time soon. Right now, they have a lot of surplus, but that can change, which will effect the nature of their optimization’s. For that reason, we should consider the incentives since they are evidently the core motivation of Google’s behavior.
If I’m not mistaken, you are encouraging others to trust an unrelated entity known to be incentivized against their best interests. Sounds like a tough sell to put it lightly.
This reads like self-satire.
Quite a huge difference there.
Saying it's fine for Google have so much power just because they are not working like Facebook, is stupid. History repeats, but we never learn our lesson.
They cross it with your location, your movements, your emails, expenses, everything.
There is no single more spooky company than Google.