Uhhh, me? My home directory has 20-30 years of documents, photos, emails, the email address itself, instant-messaging logs, etc. Even a downloaded zip of every comment I ever made on Reddit. (But not HN, I should look into that.)

The primary exception would be Google Photos pictures which were auto-uploaded from my phone that I haven't curated and downloaded yet.

I predict I will maintain my custom-domain email address much longer than if I had used Gmail, given the attrition rate of bannings without support.

> on non-archival media you still control [...] Or more likely, copied somewhere else to keep it secured.

Hold up, is this OR or XOR? It sounds like you're trying to add unreasonable (dis-)qualifiers. TFA isn't saying one must boycott "the cloud" and erase all data, it just advocates that you retain an independent copy.

> Dropbox or Backblaze or S3 one of those, you guessed it, CLOUD services.

I think that's conflating different use-cases.

* Having a regular offsite backup into S3 isn't that different from when the data was rsync'ed to a Linux machine I paid for an account on. Any cloud-ness is a remote implementation detail, not a change in the consumer relationship.

* In contrast, "all my photos are in the cloud and my friends and family can collaborate on shared albums" is different, it permanently moves the locus of control.

▲

ajross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> * In contrast, "all my photos are in the cloud and my friends and family can collaborate on shared albums" is different, it permanently moves the locus of control.

No, it doesn't. You're fooling yourself. All the criticism of "cloud" providers is predicated on a presumption of bad faith on the part of the provider. Do the same to Amazon and Dropbox and you get the same risk. More actually, since you're not just storing photos but raw backups that might end up with chat logs or password or authentication tokens or whatever.

All you're saying is that you trust party A but not party B to give you the same service. Which is fine, your trust is yours to give. But it's not an indictment of the technology behind the service!

▲

Terr_ 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're still against against a strawman. Please re-read this part of TFA:

> Don’t trust the Cloud to safekeep this stuff. Hell yeah, use the Cloud, blow whatever you want into the Cloud. The Internet’s a big copy machine, as they say. Blow copies into the Cloud. But please: (1) Don’t blow anything into the Cloud that you don’t have a personal copy of.

____________

Here's an analogy for how I feel things are going. Keep in mind the differences between: (1) a kind of product-offering, (2) the people offering it, and (3) an underlying set of technologies that could be in multiple products.

* Alt-TFA: "Fuck Asbestos - Everyone's selling asbestos pillows which are dangerous and being pushed by amoral sociopaths. Don't use them without a respirator."

* Alt-ajross: "All your criticism of asbestos is predicated on a presumption of bad faith by the providers. Stop being mean to asbestos. Asbestos can be useful."

* Alt-Terr_: "All asbestos pillows are still terrible no matter who's selling them."

____________

> All you're saying is that you trust party A but not party B to give you the same service.

No, applying logic I choose is a fundamentally different service than accepting data into logic they choose.

	▲	ajross 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> You're still against against a strawman. No, I was arguing with you, who posited that the difference between Dropbox and iCloud Photos was the "locus of control" and the "change in consumer relationship". That's not an argument about data reliability, it's an argument from trust. And it didn't make sense to me.