But how many users are legitimately capable of evaluating how privacy preserving a random Cloud AI provider is?

Let's remember that a tiny company called Meta had a "VPN" they provided for users that just happened to spy on them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39881962

And that went on for a long while before it was noticed.

Now imagine the same situation but an infinite whack-a-mole of alternative AI providers and just regular folk who will install mobile games from a frozen baby ad...

> But how many users are legitimately capable of evaluating how privacy preserving a random Cloud AI provider is?

Probably the same number of customers that are legitimately capable of evaluating the privacy of Apple's PCC?

Let's not forget a tiny company called Apple that once proposed Client Side Scanning to "save the kids" by hashing your entire iCloud. Apple loves demanding the moral high ground to promote asinine surveillance mechanisms with no safety guarantees for their users. Senator Wyden is adamant that Apple colludes with the US government to surveil metadata and intercept Push Notifications. Apple's definition of "private" doesn't actually entail privacy at all. Many third-party services are better positioned to protect their users than Apple is.

So why should users defer to Apple's arbitrary definition of privacy? It's obviously bullshit. If you're a traveling journalist, protestor or dissident, you might end up like Jamal Khashoggi for trusting Apple's services to keep you private.

Why are you so focused on continuously sucking off Apple and putting them up onto a pedestal as a precious baby of the industry that can do no wrong and should have special rules just for them instead of _suing Meta into the fucking ground_ and making sure that this behaviour is punished in ways that make it never worth it to do ?

"Oh no, there's a bully. Let me just find a toxic relationship and hope they spend enough time bullying my bully so they forget about me" isn't exactly a recipe for success.