It's you. Every trader who does not have the insider information loses. That's how markets work after all. They collect information by rewarding the use of information. Anyone who has information and uses it is rewarded and anyone who does not is punished.

Even when you are a passive investor you lose. You essentially buy shares at random points in time. When that point happens to fall between the trading of an insider and the public disclosure of the insider information you will get a worse price for that trade.

It isn't even relevant whether the insider buys stocks or other securities directly or trades in futures instead. All information you enter into the market through trades permeates the whole market through arbitrage regardless of where you enter that information.

Google is one large public company with exactly one goal: making money.

Stop shilling

How does preventing people from running software of their choice on their own device (what you call jailbreaking) prevent fraud in practice? It's a pretty strong claim you're making there. And it's being made frequently by institutions, yet I have never seen it actually explained and backed up with any real security model.

All the information and experience I ever got tells me this is security theater by institutions who try to distract from their atrocious security with some snake oil. But I'm willing to be convinced that there is more to it if presented with contraindicating information. So I'm interested in your case.

How did demanding control over your customers' devices and taking away their ability to run software of their choice in practice in quantifiable and attributable terms reduce fraud?

If Google cared just the slightest bit about keeping people safe, they would stop hosting scam ads as core part of their business model.

Google is on the side of the scammers.