> Without permission, without compensation, and with little in the way of resistance, the company seized and declared ownership over everyone’s information. No, Google has permission - it's given when you click I Agree in Android, or when you sign up for a Google account, or when you continue to use a website that has a 'terms of use' page.
in reality the permission was given the moment that people buy the phone. Nobody is going to realistically buy a phone and then deny the terms. TBH the idea that users consent because they click a button is bogus unless something like money is at stake.
I think they should try adding warning signs to phone packages, like they do in cigarettes, "tracking inside" , and see how this affects consumer choices.
I think it's a big mistake to blame Google and Facebook. They are just the latest symptoms of a long term trend. I think the real corruption started sometime in 70s or 80s when it became acceptable to declare that a company has no other obligations than to their shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman and the Chicago School of economics are the nexus of the change you're describing. If you're sort of liberal, it's a real mind bender to listen to Milton's speeches on YouTube. It was the first time I really felt exposed to the philosophical core of the various negative things I thought were random externalities of 'capitalism'
It really speaks to the great improvement of the human condition, that the big complaint about the top companies of today is that they are showing us personalized ads, rather than burning the earth or poisoning babies.
The complaint isn't that they are showing us personalized ads, it's that you can't participate in modern society without sacrificing a ton of privacy or being incredibly inconvenienced.
Does “sacrificing privacy” mean something other than “seeing personalized ads”? What’s the difference?
Worth reading even for those who already read the NYT review, as it nicely explains the timeline of how we got into this situation. Fully agree that Google and Facebook are mainly to blame. As an example, Google's success in surveillance and pacifying critics through open source trinkets almost definitely convinced Microsoft to try its hand at the same game. And now the two biggest operating system developers are spy…
> Fully agree that Google and Facebook are mainly to blame.
Let’s not ignore the complicity of their users. You can live without Google and Facebook.
I think it's a big mistake to blame Google and Facebook. They are just the latest symptoms of a long term trend. I think the real corruption started sometime in 70s or 80s when it became acceptable to declare that a company has no other obligations than to their shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman and the Chicago School of economics are the nexus of the change you're describing. If you're sort of liberal, it's a real mind bender to listen to Milton's speeches on YouTube. It was the first time I really felt exposed to the philosophical core of the various negative things I thought were random externalities of 'capitalism'
I guess ending compulsory military service, safety inspecting our food and opposing entirely state-controlled education systems are the negative core of capitalism then. Who knew.
Worth reading even for those who already read the NYT review, as it nicely explains the timeline of how we got into this situation. Fully agree that Google and Facebook are mainly to blame. As an example, Google's success in surveillance and pacifying critics through open source trinkets almost definitely convinced Microsoft to try its hand at the same game. And now the two biggest operating system developers are spy…
Do you see Google and Facebook as equals in terms of badness? Honestly, I’ve always perceived Google as less insidious than Facebook. To me FB is more in your face, channeling your behavior. Google seems more passive and delivers more utility. What am I missing?
Google's surveillance system has more reach that Facebook's. Both are extensive, but it's pretty common to find webpages that contain no facebook tracking but do contain google tracking. In fact it's pretty rare to find websites that don't contain any google tracking. And I can avoid Facebook's gaze by using email, but if I use email almost inevitably somebody I want to email will be using gmail, meaning any messages sent necessarily go to google.
> Without permission, without compensation, and with little in the way of resistance, the company seized and declared ownership over everyone’s information. No, Google has permission - it's given when you click I Agree in Android, or when you sign up for a Google account, or when you continue to use a website that has a 'terms of use' page.
in reality the permission was given the moment that people buy the phone. Nobody is going to realistically buy a phone and then deny the terms. TBH the idea that users consent because they click a button is bogus unless something like money is at stake. I think they should try adding warning signs to phone packages, like they do in cigarettes, "tracking inside" , and see how this affects consumer choices.
In reality the permission was given the moment that people buy the phone.
Not for Google. Permission is given when you agree to sign up for a Google account. Google tries to trick you into signing up by using a dark pattern. Just click "Later", then remove the signup app. I've been doing that for years now on Android phones.
Even if you agree with the statement, it was a meaningless reply to the question asked.
Journalists are professional and have to be paid. And they are not being paid, because Google is an unethical business. And that's why your local newspaper is struggling and why content is not created on internet and why there is no VC investment in the media and content. That's the answer.
You still have not explained how Google is responsible for the failure of online newspaper business models. If google did not exist, what would these newspapers be doing differently that would keep them profitable?
I'm a bit torn on this - for a long while, I saw Google as trying to promote "the right way" of doing things, and only getting frustrated and doing it themselves after handset manufacturers and cell providers kept doing it wrong. I mean, was the original Nexus anything other than "look everyone, this is how it SHOULD be done, but we have no interest in actually being the ones to do it"? That doesn't deny that Google…
My CEO in the mobile video space explained the rise of smartphones to me very simply: economically, it was about transferring ownership of the customer from the carrier to the device manufacturer. Apple doubled down and broke the established mold by demanding ownership if carriers wanted their devices. Google whose entire house of cards is based on the web advertising model, had to respond. They responded by providin…
This is so true. Even on iPhone. I was recently traveling abroad and lost my debit card so I cancelled it. I had a credit card for the remainder of my travels but I wanted to wait to replace my iTunes/App Store payment with my new debit card number instead of my credit card. Well when Apple tried to run my disabled debit card for my monthly fees (Apple Music, extra iCloud storage space, etc.) the card didn't work and the app store was basically bricked on my phone until I updated my payment method. I couldn't even download the free updates to the free apps on my phone until Apple got their $8 from me. I'm generally a big fan of Apple and I think they usually try to do right by customers but it's appalling that a company is able to hold such an important personal device hostage without any warning over an insignificant infraction.
Surveillance exists with or without capitalism too, nevertheless we do analogical complain about capitalism being corrupted by it. Why the difference? Having slaves was profitable. A lot profitable. The only capitalist incentive for freedom was that north laborers did not wanted to compete with slaves. Competing with slaveholders sux, because slaves are cheaper and free men social status goes down if he do slaves lik…
Ancient Rome was around 30-40% slaves, though there were many different kinds used in addition to chattel slavery (various forms of indentured servitude, etc), so it's hard to make clear comparisons. However, the Roman empire wouldn't have existed in it's highest form without slaves. They were integral to the economy.
I remember reading that the Greeks or Romans would probably consider today's average wage earner a slave. Interesting to ponder about.