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.