Curious.

Super Bowl 2026, brought to you by your 3 AM conversations with @claudeai.

@0xExcalibur_ ehh wrong

@curiousbrowser Looks like all are truth But if 1 is Lie then it would be first one

Two truths and a lie: - Google sends your Gemini conversations to human reviewers. - Anthropic set the training toggle to "On" by default for existing users. - ChatGPT doesn't remember your conversations after you delete them.

@DeendaWeb3 you sure?

@curiousbrowser I think the lie is the third statement 😒

It’s your browser, but is it built for you?

When you finally realize that the "Accept All Cookies" button is really the "Sell My Data" button.

@manzwayy Most will never know because most will never read.

@curiousbrowser A combination of complicated global legal compliance and a strategy to keep users from reading the details. The bottom line: "We're harvesting your data for advertising and AI, and here are 27 pages of reasons why we're allowed to do so."

Why is Meta's privacy policy ~27 pages long?

@BSongulalp10 Couldn't agree more.

@curiousbrowser Let’s be honest… if it actually protected our privacy, it wouldn’t need to be 27 pages long 😅 Feels more like it’s written so nobody questions what’s really going on.

@iowelosu The length is to confuse you & protect them. Clarity doesn't need ~7000 words

Because in today’s internet, privacy isn’t just about what they protect — it’s about what they collect, how they use it, who they share it with, and how long they keep it. Every extra page usually means: • more data flows • more edge cases • more legal coverage • more ways your data can be processed Real privacy would be simple. Complex policies often mean complex data usage. Privacy shouldn’t be hidden in 27 pages. It should be clear in 3 lines

@ArmandoJoh67508 You get it 👏

@curiousbrowser Long policies are written to protect the company first while most people never read them anyway

@binhtranva They call it privacy policy, what is protects is their surveillance.

@curiousbrowser Because it’s not just about “privacy.” It’s a comprehensive legal document covering data collection, usage, sharing, compliance across multiple countries, and protecting the company from liability

@Taras_Heviuk gmm!

@curiousbrowser Gcurious

@Hangover_74 amen to that

@curiousbrowser Nobody reads it anyway. It’s basically written to protect the company legally, not your privacy. But since no one actually reads 27 pages, that option nails the joke.

Meta's privacy policy is 25+ pages, ~7,000 words & 41,000+ characters long. And that doesn't even include the expandable sections and sub-policies. You really think that's because it was designed to be fair to the user?

Your browser tracks every site you visit. Your search engine logs every question you ask. Your feed knows what you like before you do. Your AI trains on every word you say. None of them asked. All of them profited. Two decades. Trillions in revenue. Where's your cut?

@manzwayy Designed for privacy" protects exactly one party. And it's not the person wearing the glasses.

@curiousbrowser Pay a premium to be an unpaid Meta intern. Designed for Privacy presumably means Meta's privacy is protected, while yours is made a spectacle in Kenya. A brilliant, yet highly unethical scheme.

They said "designed for privacy," and 7M+ Meta glass users bought into that promise. The reality? Millions of users funded a data collection operation wearing Ray-Bans. An investigation by Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten revealed that footage from the glasses is sent to contractors in Kenya who manually watch and label it to train Meta's AI. They saw people undressing, using the bathroom, credit card numbers, private messages, faces. Meta said face blurring protects users. Workers said it doesn't consistently work. Users can't opt out. The marketing said "designed for privacy, controlled by you." The pipeline said your most private moments are training data. You paid for the glasses. You train their AI at the cost of your privacy. Marketed for privacy. Built for profit. Same broken deal, different product.

@ArmandoJoh67508 Same broken deal, just different product.

@curiousbrowser Privacy sold as protection turned into surveillance showing again how profit was placed above trust

@BSongulalp10 Exactly it's not one bad browser, but a bad deal. You give up your privacy for their profit. We don't need another chromium fork, we need a browser that's actually built for the users.

Starting to realize the problem isn’t just ‘which browser we use’… it’s the whole system behind it. We’ve been trading our data for convenience for so long that it feels normal now. If something actually flips that model and puts users first, that’s honestly worth paying attention to.

@Taras_Heviuk The deal's been broken from day 1. It's time for a new deal, one where you control what's being collected, where it goes, and who profits.

@curiousbrowser Privacy shouldn’t mean becoming unpaid training data. This is exactly the problem Web3 and privacy-first tools are trying to fix.