> * 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!

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.