I think it is more a "better the mobster with a vacation home in town" essentially - while a bad actor's interests are aligned. They may still screw you over but if they are greedy ironically on your side.

> I know my data stays with Google and won't be siphoned to a third party that I don't know.

How can you be so sure about that?

You can't. But Google is an ad company and an ad company does not just give away their most valuable resource, the data. So it's more about the devil you know then the devil you don't know.

An ad company can sold your data in various forms and formats. Maybe it won't sell your raw data, but will sell you nevertheless.

Even if it doesn't sell your data, it can use your data to make their ads more efficient for you and people similar to you. While that's their business model, they are borderline abusing you in the process. This not something I'm comfortable with.

They sell recordings of your activity for money, and you don't even get a cut. No royalties, no nothing. So they are profiting from your actions, without paying you. Bit unethical right? I generally consider my time valuable enough to sell it, and my actions even more so.

> and an ad company does not just give away their most valuable resource

Correct. They sell it for money. How exactly is that better at keeping your private data private? Google's power doesn't reside in the fact that it keeps your data private but in the fact that they have a constant flow of up to date data. When you hand over data to a company whose revenue (also) officially comes from monetizing it your privacy is forfeited.

I can't in the same way I can't be sure the Mozilla Corporation isn't pulling another Cliqz on me. So what's your point?

The point you made is (simplified) "Chrome is better than Firefox for privacy". Yet you brought nothing to support this beyond "the devil you know is better". Especially since Google is heavily relying on marketing your data to the point where they gather it covertly or force users into privacy breaking situations.

Common sense would lead anyone to assume they don't collect it just to flip bits on a storage device. Just when you thought you knew the devil. Knowing this guess you'll drop Chrome now, right?

[0]-[over 9000]

So tell me about this devil you know and how exactly knowing all that still pushes you to believe it's the better option?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18042802

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17942252

[3] https://mashable.com/article/google-chrome-69-forced-login/?...

[4] https://gizmodo.com/google-stores-location-data-even-with-lo...

[5] https://mashable.com/article/google-android-data-collection-...

[6] i can go on but I'm pretty sure a modicum of good will from your side would be enough to get the point.

> 4 and 5 are not Chrome

Ok... I'd read it for you but that's not how it works. So here it is in nuggets:

> "Both Android and Chrome send data to Google even in the absence of any user interaction," the study finds. "Our experiments show that a dormant, stationary Android phone (with Chrome active in the background) communicated location information to Google 340 times during a 24-hour period, or at an average of 14 data communications per hour."

> So yes, fuck Mozilla, they can burn.

Ah, ok, I was waiting for you to change the narrative from "Mozilla bad, Google good" to "I have no argument, I just don't like Mozilla".

And don't get me wrong, you have every right to like whatever you want. Just don't pretend you have valid objective arguments.

Sure, if you disregard the entirety of my post it looks like Mozilla is full of saints. The truth is that they've backstabbed me several times and I won't allow them to do it anymore. Take from that what you will. Maybe, if the Mozilla Corporation changes hands, I will trust them again, but as it stands now, no way.

Wait, I thought you are are using Chrome because unlike Firefox they (Google) never backstabbed you. Except they actually did so your argument turns into "Mozilla sometimes employs the same tactics as Google but I'll pretend Google doesn't do it to justify my personal taste".

I have 0 interest in telling you what you should like or use, or pretending that Mozilla always plays fair. I just felt compelled to point out that the justification you presented here is horse manure. You use Chrome because you want to. Don't try to sell it as an objective conclusion even if it's written in the same sentence as a related objective argument. One is not based on the other.

Objectively both Mozilla and Google resort to trickery, only the scale is vastly different for the company that lives on monetizing your privacy. And mind you, I use Chrome 90% of the time. But I'm not fooling myself with explanations like "Google will protect my privacy" and "the devil I know must be good".

Here's a short list of other horse manure conclusions that can be extraneously drawn from accurate and objective arguments:

-I drive a VW car because GM was once caught cheating on emission tests

-I use an Intel CPUs because AMD CPUs once had a bug

-I use Windows because Linux had a vulnerability once

-I use Chrome because Mozilla once gave/sold my private data to some 3rd party