7 ms·

Indeed. The “If you aren't paying you are the product” is an anachronistic and ignorant trope leveraged in fanfolk wars. It excuses those things that are paid

Indeed. The “If you aren't paying you are the product” is an anachronistic and ignorant trope leveraged in fanfolk wars. It excuses those things that are paid for and are further monetised. Take for example your music purchases and a “You might like...” suggestion list; you have paid for the system, purchased music, and surprisingly your purchases are being tracked and further monetisation is attempted. Vast troves of interaction data is accumulated and analysed ad infinitum[1]. Free lunches _do_ exist as well, as anyone with a good friend or child will attest to. The slogans of hypercapitalism are rampant, none of which do justice to the complexities of context. [1] Yes Apple is included in this, as we know from the extensive market research revealed via the Samsung lawsuit and the fact that Ping no longer exists.

lqdc13 11y ago
Those aren't free lunches though. They are paying with future reciprocity.
- jgome 11y ago
  If the only thing your parents cared about when you were a child was their own future... your family must be terrible. I'm sorry for you. Some people really do things selflessly, and/or in term of social welfare. Not everything is "money" or "our own future".
  - ninkendo 11y ago
    Was that first line necessary?
    - smtddr 11y ago
      The OP's comment used that as an example: ">>Free lunches _do_ exist as well, as anyone with a good friend or child will attest to. Then the reply: >> Those aren't free lunches though. They are paying with future reciprocity. So it's directly the topic in this thread, not just some random out-of-context personal attack, and I agree with jgome.
  - lqdc13 11y ago
    The question whether altruism exists is, i think, beyond the scope of this discussion. Whether my parents loved me is also not relevant, although I can assure you that they gave me things out of love and ostensibly altruistically. With friends, I think, most people will agree there is reciprocity if not with money but with something else like company. With children, it is harder to argue without introducing other concepts, but I argue that it is not altruistic and has gene reproduction as the final goal. If you haven't heard this argument before, you can look into "Genome" by Matt Ridley for a colorful explanation.
    - foolrush 11y ago
      “With friends, I think, most people will agree there is reciprocity if not with money but with something else like company.” Bzzt. That is where your ideological map is attempting to define the territory. Not all qualitative expression forms a transaction of quantitative proportions as (hyper)capitalism may have one believe. I also sincerely doubt the discussion is somehow a debate on altruism, although when lensed through capitalist ideology it leaves few other classes as option. Again, the slogans of hypercapitalism are rampant, as we have seen with both the “free lunch” and “you are the product” tropes that lay at the foundation of this thread. Instead, it is likely a discussion of magnitudes and trust. To an extent, all design insists on data and knowing. Take for example a shoe; we need to know your foot size and some other contexts, possibly such as usage. Should we know your foot size or is this an abuse? What if we are a shoe company and choose to register your facets in a database and across our stores? Is this a magnitude of qualia that creates a problem? Now what if we choose to sell your shoe size to another vendor that may help you with other health choices? Another shoe vendor altogether? A company that isn't a shoe vendor? Where do we draw the dividing line here on the magnitudes? I don't pretend the answers are easy or clear, but they certainly seem worth exploring given the context. Selling browsing data can be a serious issue of course, not the least of which seems perpendicular to the apparent direction of the original business model. Who are they selling to? Insurance companies that care that you browsed about HIV medication or another software firm interested in security and the types of sites you visit? Complex stuff for sure, but certainly not something to reduce to a polemic of altruism versus capitalism?
- benbristow 11y ago
  It's like being given a beer but owing one back on your round.
CamperBob2 11y ago
"If you aren't paying, you're the product" is exactly correct when dealing with commercial software, GPL and otherwise. That's the idea behind the word "commercial." Commerce is taking place and somebody is making money, whether by offering paid support for GPL software at one end of the spectrum or by selling you out to advertisers at the other end. I distinctly remember opting in to Apple's music suggestion service. Was that true for AVG's customers?
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > Commerce is taking place and somebody is making money, whether by offering paid support for GPL software at one end of the spectrum or by selling you out to advertisers at the other end. RedHat is a commercial operation that makes money by selling support contracts for GPL software they produce. But I haven't bought a support contract even though I use some of their software without paying anything, so am I the customer or the product?
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    You're neither. You're not a part of their business model at all. Your relationship with Red Hat is very different from your relationship with Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AVG. That should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > You're neither. You're not a part of their business model at all. Sure you are. Platforms have network effects. They're better off if you use their software than if you use Windows, even if you don't buy a support contract. So the exchange is that you get free software and they get network effects. It's not an adversarial relationship where you have conflicting interests regarding how much they'll be paid or how much privacy they'll take from you, because network effects don't hurt you (as long as the vendor is not a monopoly) -- if you're using the software then they help you. Sometimes there is a free lunch. > Your relationship with Red Hat is very different from your relationship with Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AVG. That should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't. That's the point. "If you're not paying you're the product" is thereby disproved. You can have a relationship with a commercial entity in which neither is true. Worse, the implied alternative is also wrong. You can be paying and be the product, as you are with Windows 10. If you want something to take home, it's this: Stop patronizing companies that convert your privacy into their money.

lqdc13 11y ago

Those aren't free lunches though. They are paying with future reciprocity.

jgome 11y ago
If the only thing your parents cared about when you were a child was their own future... your family must be terrible. I'm sorry for you. Some people really do things selflessly, and/or in term of social welfare. Not everything is "money" or "our own future".
- ninkendo 11y ago
  Was that first line necessary?
  - smtddr 11y ago
    The OP's comment used that as an example: ">>Free lunches _do_ exist as well, as anyone with a good friend or child will attest to. Then the reply: >> Those aren't free lunches though. They are paying with future reciprocity. So it's directly the topic in this thread, not just some random out-of-context personal attack, and I agree with jgome.
- lqdc13 11y ago
  The question whether altruism exists is, i think, beyond the scope of this discussion. Whether my parents loved me is also not relevant, although I can assure you that they gave me things out of love and ostensibly altruistically. With friends, I think, most people will agree there is reciprocity if not with money but with something else like company. With children, it is harder to argue without introducing other concepts, but I argue that it is not altruistic and has gene reproduction as the final goal. If you haven't heard this argument before, you can look into "Genome" by Matt Ridley for a colorful explanation.
  - foolrush 11y ago
    “With friends, I think, most people will agree there is reciprocity if not with money but with something else like company.” Bzzt. That is where your ideological map is attempting to define the territory. Not all qualitative expression forms a transaction of quantitative proportions as (hyper)capitalism may have one believe. I also sincerely doubt the discussion is somehow a debate on altruism, although when lensed through capitalist ideology it leaves few other classes as option. Again, the slogans of hypercapitalism are rampant, as we have seen with both the “free lunch” and “you are the product” tropes that lay at the foundation of this thread. Instead, it is likely a discussion of magnitudes and trust. To an extent, all design insists on data and knowing. Take for example a shoe; we need to know your foot size and some other contexts, possibly such as usage. Should we know your foot size or is this an abuse? What if we are a shoe company and choose to register your facets in a database and across our stores? Is this a magnitude of qualia that creates a problem? Now what if we choose to sell your shoe size to another vendor that may help you with other health choices? Another shoe vendor altogether? A company that isn't a shoe vendor? Where do we draw the dividing line here on the magnitudes? I don't pretend the answers are easy or clear, but they certainly seem worth exploring given the context. Selling browsing data can be a serious issue of course, not the least of which seems perpendicular to the apparent direction of the original business model. Who are they selling to? Insurance companies that care that you browsed about HIV medication or another software firm interested in security and the types of sites you visit? Complex stuff for sure, but certainly not something to reduce to a polemic of altruism versus capitalism?
benbristow 11y ago
It's like being given a beer but owing one back on your round.

CamperBob2 11y ago

"If you aren't paying, you're the product" is exactly correct when dealing with commercial software, GPL and otherwise. That's the idea behind the word "commercial." Commerce is taking place and somebody is making money, whether by offering paid support for GPL software at one end of the spectrum or by selling you out to advertisers at the other end. I distinctly remember opting in to Apple's music suggestion service. Was that true for AVG's customers?

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> Commerce is taking place and somebody is making money, whether by offering paid support for GPL software at one end of the spectrum or by selling you out to advertisers at the other end. RedHat is a commercial operation that makes money by selling support contracts for GPL software they produce. But I haven't bought a support contract even though I use some of their software without paying anything, so am I the customer or the product?
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  You're neither. You're not a part of their business model at all. Your relationship with Red Hat is very different from your relationship with Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AVG. That should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > You're neither. You're not a part of their business model at all. Sure you are. Platforms have network effects. They're better off if you use their software than if you use Windows, even if you don't buy a support contract. So the exchange is that you get free software and they get network effects. It's not an adversarial relationship where you have conflicting interests regarding how much they'll be paid or how much privacy they'll take from you, because network effects don't hurt you (as long as the vendor is not a monopoly) -- if you're using the software then they help you. Sometimes there is a free lunch. > Your relationship with Red Hat is very different from your relationship with Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AVG. That should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't. That's the point. "If you're not paying you're the product" is thereby disproved. You can have a relationship with a commercial entity in which neither is true. Worse, the implied alternative is also wrong. You can be paying and be the product, as you are with Windows 10. If you want something to take home, it's this: Stop patronizing companies that convert your privacy into their money.