Under your definitions' it seems like being a nationalist (believing in the nation-state and sovereignty) & white supremacy are synonymous — which obviously they are not, unless you are suggesting all nationalists are racist or something.
Though I do agree with your logic. Google won't need your login info to profile you any more than Facebook does.
Your browser FP (such as hardware device info), IP address, frequent search terms (browsing habits) and distinct pattern will be sufficient enough to identify you without logging in. Metadata is everything in locking down targets.
It's for tracking which chrome experiments are enabled, allowing chrome to check the impact of new chrome features by enabling them for only some populations and comparing the results. As it says in the white paper: "This header is used to evaluate the effect on Google servers - for example, a networking change may affect YouTube video load speed or an Omnibox ranking update may result in more helpful Google Search results."
That's describing it short-term at best, as some have pointed to you already.
Also, I don't see the important word "only" in the passage you're quoting, so given the usual MO of profit-driven corporations I'm just going to assume they omit other purposes of which there's at least a ton.
>Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. Declaring that you have no choice is a result of the inability to confront the weakness to acknowledge the unpleasant decision.
The author is using the term non-voluntary in a different sense. If all your material needs are met, e.g. housing, food and hygiene — then working to acquire capital is voluntary. The pre-requisites mentioned are the foundation of an abundant society. Obviously someone in India is going to have a far greater need to acquire capital to sustain themselves' than your average metropolitan Australian; such is the wealth disparity that currently exists globally.
Don't get me wrong — I believe work is an important component of our lives'. Indeed it can give us meaning and joy amongst other things (perhaps routine as a fundamental). But what I think this author is trying to illustrate is that our current society as a structure leaves zero room for the disciplines that are either a) unexplored, or b) are creative in nature. If it's the latter then it is a mere pittance of what a full-time employee earns. That is the trade-off.
I think you've missed the point of the article. He is illustrating a society of post-capitalism where the emphasis on work is not to maintain ones' standard of life, but rather to "play" as he puts — a method of unlocking the 'true joy' life has to offer. This concept is not rooted in the need of capital.
Under your definitions' it seems like being a nationalist (believing in the nation-state and sovereignty) & white supremacy are synonymous — which obviously they are not, unless you are suggesting all nationalists are racist or something.