And conversely, just because you're not paying doesn't mean you aren't a stakeholder. Companies value you based on his much money you make them, they don't care if it's ad money or not.
Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
121–130 of 221 posts
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#122The next to last paragraph bothers me: On Hackernews, they think it's "entitlement" to think that you can use free email and search engines and expect not to be tracked. The main problem with this line of thinking is that even if you had the option to pay for your email and for your search engine, some G**gle executive somewhere would mention during a meeting that they could add an extra $X million of revenue if they…
> If you're paying cash for the service, though, you're well within your right to set expectations on the terms the service is provided on.
And you can vote with your wallet. Once the user is being charged, the choice becomes not “should I pay?” but “whom should I pay?”. If we imagine some evil exec deciding to sell user data, once that inevitably leaks it is much easier for the users to decide to switch to another search/email provider (which would have much easier time surviving, not having to compete with free). And losing users means losing advertising appeal, so both streams of revenue would be lost simultaneously.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty simple - if its not profitable to run a service without spying on your users then it should simply not be run. That's it!
OK, that’s how you feel, and your choice. What do you think about people who wouldn’t mind being spied on in exchange for free or cheaper services? I’m personally with you, by the way, but I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s not the only valid position.
It's not the only valid position, its just the only position that doesn't allow giant corporations to use their power to coerce people with no money to give up their agency.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty simple - if its not profitable to run a service without spying on your users then it should simply not be run. That's it!
OK, that’s how you feel, and your choice. What do you think about people who wouldn’t mind being spied on in exchange for free or cheaper services? I’m personally with you, by the way, but I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s not the only valid position.
> What do you think about people who wouldn’t mind being spied on in exchange for free or cheaper services?
I would really like to know how many people are actually like this, if they knew the full, total picture. There will be a lot, that's sure, but maybe not the overwhelming majority of uninformed people we have now.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do not, and should not, have a right not to be tracked. You should have a right to know if a given company wants to track you, and to decide if you want to still do business with them as a result. Similarly, they should have the right to know if you are going to block/evade tracking and be able to decide if they still want to do business with you as a result. This is how a free market works.
Oh hey, the "growth consultant" thinks we shouldn't have privacy. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on not understanding it.
Aside from growth consultants, importance of privacy will be lost on a large and critical subset of engineers. This is why a huge blame goes on academics who train wave upon wave of new engineers with pathetic levels of ethical training.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#126The next to last paragraph bothers me: On Hackernews, they think it's "entitlement" to think that you can use free email and search engines and expect not to be tracked. The main problem with this line of thinking is that even if you had the option to pay for your email and for your search engine, some G**gle executive somewhere would mention during a meeting that they could add an extra $X million of revenue if they…
>Expecting a valuable service with absolutely no consideration in return absolutely is a case of entitlement. If that consideration isn't cash, it has to be something else.
And that's well understood, and it was supposed to be advertising.
Which can be orthogonal to tracking, privacy violations, selling your data, and so on.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#127On one hand he says companies have no incentive to allow you to block tracking. On the other hand half the article is about how Apple allows you to do precisely that.
Silly author.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh hey, the "growth consultant" thinks we shouldn't have privacy. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
This is an ad hominem. He's making a fair point, attacking him personally doesn't improve the conversation.
It is an ad hominem, I agree, but the opinion stated by GP is clearly dictated by their past career and experience. Actually seeing the ad-hominem made me check the GP profile.
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty simple - if its not profitable to run a service without spying on your users then it should simply not be run. That's it!
OK, that’s how you feel, and your choice. What do you think about people who wouldn’t mind being spied on in exchange for free or cheaper services? I’m personally with you, by the way, but I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s not the only valid position.
>OK, that’s how you feel, and your choice. What do you think about people who wouldn’t mind being spied on in exchange for free or cheaper services?
I'd feel like there's no universal God-given social contract that says they have a "right" to this, so I'd suggest we ban it anyways (just like they're free to suggest to allow it).
Re: Even if you’re paying, you’re still the product
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an ad hominem. He's making a fair point, attacking him personally doesn't improve the conversation.
It is an ad hominem, I agree, but the opinion stated by GP is clearly dictated by their past career and experience. Actually seeing the ad-hominem made me check the GP profile.
Sure, pointing out a bias is fair, but it needs to be followed with an actual refutation of the idea presented. Just saying "you're wrong because of who you are" doesn't add much.