Now I feel they are harvesting all my data to jam ads down my throat.
I’m curious: how did you expect them to pay for the overhead of providing this service? I’m sure you didn’t think that they would just eat the cost of providing it forever, right?
Not that I disagree, but this is a shit take IMHO. It’s always been the case that ads paid for “free” services, but the scale and invasiveness of the ads and data collection has clearly accelerated beyond a reasonable level. They waited until they captured a large enough user base and crowded out enough of their competition before gouging their users for ad revenue. They have the size and reach of a small(or medium-sized, even) nation, the data they are able to collect is a wet dream for any three letter agency.
Just because ads are what make the business model feasible doesn’t mean they get a free pass to abuse their market position carte blanche. They should be cut down to size, and not just by user migration.
but the scale and invasiveness of the ads and data collection has clearly accelerated beyond a reasonable level
Reasonable to whom? You? Google? The legal system? Some dude living in a bunker in South Dakota? Which person or entity should google consult with before making a decision on what level is “reasonable”?
Making the decision to fund a vast majority of the internet with ads was a pretty big mistake in hindsight, though I couldn’t say which way would have been better.
We don’t disagree on the basics; I just don’t blame a company for acting in the company’s best financial interests. That’s kind of the way they work-- arguably the CEO of a public company is bound by law to do so. I blame the representatives in the (US) government for failing to protect my interests and privacy. I frequently see news articles about consumer protections in Europe and feel jealous that we don’t have the same level here.
I blame the representatives in the (US) government for failing to protect my interests and privacy.
If a (at this time fictional, really powerful, general purpose) AI exists to enshure as many stamps are delivered to its door as possable (a maximizer), it needs to make inert anything that would restrain it from that goal in any capacity. Law is subverted because with laws, you cant maximize stamps by stealing the carbon from others (likely killing them) to grow trees to stuff and let rot in a random house.
They run roughly a 50% profit margin, with ~80% of their budget coming from advertising revenue. Given that that’s amounting to about 100B year over year, with the Orwellian scope of their, what word can I use, surveillance - I would call it excessive.
Personally I’m surprised that there’s not a premium tier that we can pay for to get quality back on Google services. Google business is the same crap but with a custom domain
But that would make websites with less adds more popular. Maybe it would increase the number of websites that just show enough adds to support their servers… I don’t know maybe it will be very small percentage, but at least not 0
I’m curious: how did you expect them to pay for the overhead of providing this service? I’m sure you didn’t think that they would just eat the cost of providing it forever, right?
recurrant subscriptions, Corprate mail hosting, non invasive ads, not double-dipping, notreadimg your mail
It doesnt make all the money, but its not corrupt.
Not that I disagree, but this is a shit take IMHO. It’s always been the case that ads paid for “free” services, but the scale and invasiveness of the ads and data collection has clearly accelerated beyond a reasonable level. They waited until they captured a large enough user base and crowded out enough of their competition before gouging their users for ad revenue. They have the size and reach of a small(or medium-sized, even) nation, the data they are able to collect is a wet dream for any three letter agency.
Just because ads are what make the business model feasible doesn’t mean they get a free pass to abuse their market position carte blanche. They should be cut down to size, and not just by user migration.
Reasonable to whom? You? Google? The legal system? Some dude living in a bunker in South Dakota? Which person or entity should google consult with before making a decision on what level is “reasonable”?
Making the decision to fund a vast majority of the internet with ads was a pretty big mistake in hindsight, though I couldn’t say which way would have been better.
We don’t disagree on the basics; I just don’t blame a company for acting in the company’s best financial interests. That’s kind of the way they work-- arguably the CEO of a public company is bound by law to do so. I blame the representatives in the (US) government for failing to protect my interests and privacy. I frequently see news articles about consumer protections in Europe and feel jealous that we don’t have the same level here.
If a (at this time fictional, really powerful, general purpose) AI exists to enshure as many stamps are delivered to its door as possable (a maximizer), it needs to make inert anything that would restrain it from that goal in any capacity. Law is subverted because with laws, you cant maximize stamps by stealing the carbon from others (likely killing them) to grow trees to stuff and let rot in a random house.
Maximizers are indiffrent to human life.
Read more about their actual budget.
I don’t understand your comment. Can you elaborate?
They run roughly a 50% profit margin, with ~80% of their budget coming from advertising revenue. Given that that’s amounting to about 100B year over year, with the Orwellian scope of their, what word can I use, surveillance - I would call it excessive.
This is not the users problem. This is googles problem.
If they want to give away a thing for free, then don’t be surprised when people take that thing for free.
My point was that people should have known it was never free to begin with.
apologist use that soundbyte even if thats not what you ment. Ive made the same mistake.
Personally I’m surprised that there’s not a premium tier that we can pay for to get quality back on Google services. Google business is the same crap but with a custom domain
Sometimes I wonder if people never blocked adds, would websites have less adds?
I believe there would be the same amount, or possibly more ads, but more targeted and more intrusive.
But that would make websites with less adds more popular. Maybe it would increase the number of websites that just show enough adds to support their servers… I don’t know maybe it will be very small percentage, but at least not 0