• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      No, not really. There are low bars; this isn’t one of them. This is not something I expect average people who aren’t into technology to anticipate. Nerds like me, yeah. But not the public. Though we’re getting to that point.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s simply not true. People can’t be expected to know what’s going on under the hood of services designed specifically to simplify things for non-technical users and conceal what’s under the hood.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Then don’t allow them to use those services without a license. It’s cars or chemicals all over again.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Are people required to know how their car works?

          Do people have to understand chemistry to buy gasoline or mercury thermometers?

    • Zacryon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s called victim blaming.

      But yeah. I really hope people stop using Google products. Google is evil.

      • seralth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        To be fair it is in this case the victims is more at fault then not for misusing, misunderstanding and not reading the terms of service or explicate use case.

        Like this would be like getting mad at your doctor for keeping notes over you and sharing them with other doctors. But not your random friends or strangers.

        Incognito mode has said it’s always been local privacy only not that it doesn’t track or record you, nor prevents others from doing so.

        It’s just turning off history basically.

  • Meltdown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think anyone thought that “incognito mode” his anything from anyone except the other users of that particular computer

  • Elgenzay@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    You’ve gone Incognito. Others who use this device won’t see your activity, so you can browse more privately. This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google. Downloads, bookmarks and reading list items will be saved.

    - Google Chrome

      • Elgenzay@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ah, good find. I just assumed it would have been explicit about it from the start

        • seralth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Even before that change it’s explicit about it… The change literally did not change any part of the text that tells you who can and are going to track you. They basically went from “this isn’t real privacy” to screaming at your face cause apparently people can’t read and are idiots.

          This is a case of users misusing a tool and not reading. At best you can argue that google should have assumed it’s users were stupid beyond measure from the start and had a tos so verbose that only someone missing a brain could misunderstand the point of the tool.

        • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, one would have hoped that’d be the case - but apparently not.

          I just remembered reading this a while back (start of last year, it seems?), and it honestly felt like a tacit admission of wrong-doing - so they’re likely going to be facing an uphill battle, or at least are expecting one.

  • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    If anyone thought that Incognito somehow protected their data from websites or services, then that’s their fault for jumping to that conclusion in the face of everything saying that’s not the case.

    Also…

    In lawsuits settlement

    In meme sentence, words disappear.

    • turtlesareneat@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      That was actually their lawyer’s argument, that “incognito mode” being private was just something people assumed and ran with, not their fault.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I mean, they called it “Incognito”.

        Incognito: having one’s true identity concealed

        If it doesn’t conceal your identity, then that’s pretty clearly misleading. They’re not selling to experts, the users of this are laypeople. It’s like if you sold a “waterproof phone” and the packaging all made it look like it could withstand water, but then when it got wet it broke and you were like “people just assumed it was waterproof, it’s not our fault”.
        Sure experts could tell, and enthusiasts would read the expert opinions on it, but that’s not something you should expect of laypeople considering how it is presented.

        • seralth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It IS local incognito. By definition the name is accurate.

          The wording on the warning both BEFORE AND AFTER the change says explicitly websites you visit, and anything external WILL still record and track you.

          It said BEFORE AND AFTER that ONLY local things such as history omor cookies arnt saved.

          It is 100% incognito. For the local browser. It warms BEFORE AND AFTER that it’s not real privacy.

          They changed the wording basically from an assumption people will read the examples given on the SAME page as the warning. To having the examples built into the warning.

          Basically they assumed their users could read. They were wrong, people can’t read. So they have to scream it now.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            “local Incognito” is some real mental gymnastics. If the witness protection program told people they’d help them go incognito, but only hid them from their own families and made it easy for strangers and enemies to find them, would you really consider that be what a reasonable interpretation?

            Stop defending people who use shit like huge ToS docs and dark patterns to weasel out of deceptive marketing

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      and i’m pretty sure the browsers have been quite explicit about this for a long time now, but of course no one bothers to read “This won’t change how data is collected by websites you visit and the services they use, including Google.”

      • seralth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s as far as I remember literally always said it’s basically just turning off local history, and not for true privacy. The wording has changed over the years and frankly only become more explicated and clear about that fact.

        This is a rare case of google NOT being the problem here. People are misusing a tool that has always been honest about itself.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Incognito was never about hiding your data from Google, it was always about preventing random websites from getting your data

    • m0stlyharmless@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It doesn’t even do that. All it does is prevent persistent data from being stored from the browsing session (so, no disk cache or browsing history).

    • seralth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      From day one it is explicitly said it doesn’t do that. It’s literally always been on the main blank tab page right below the warning over what it does.

      How they even had to update the wording because of all of this because people didn’t bother to read three bullet points

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Go to the website directly! Porn hub is not hard to spell! I spell it all the time even using no fingers at all!

    • ssɐqɯnᗡ@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Wouldn’t that be amazing! I have single frames of good videos stuck in my head that I can never find again.

  • Karl@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    So this is why the weird shite I look up in incognito comes up when I search something without incognito mode.

  • Nangijala@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wait… people actually think that incognito means that they don’t record your searches??

    I thought everybody knew that all incognito does is preventing your searches from showing up in your search history.

    Did anyone actually think that these big tech companies would willingly give you an option to keep your searches private from them?

    Hello???

    Always assume that everything you do online is being recorded and seen by someone. Unless you’re a master computer wiz or whatever the fuck they call it these days, ALWAYS ASSUME YOUR ACTIVITY ONLINE IS PUBLIC.

    • quant@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is the consequence of wrapping everything in glossy plastics and dumbed down UI for decades. People don’t want to learn, and even if they do it’s all hidden away behind blobs and bloats.

    • Googledotcom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Cmon if you use tor to search about cookie recipes then you are ill, Schizo

      Healthy people use tor to hire hitman on their boss after boss fired them, or a hacker to doxx the jerk that downvoted them