5 ms·

They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. They aren't directly selling the data itself but th

They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. They aren't directly selling the data itself but they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. I think the semantics are negligible. They make money selling [ads based on] user data.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. That's not selling user information in the same way that Ford doesn't sell automobile factories. > They aren't directly selling the data itself Nor are they indirectly selling the data. No one else gets the data. > they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. They are using the data to produce a service that they are selling, in the same way that Ford uses a factory to make a car. No one else gets the data, in the same way that no one else gets the factory from Ford. > I think the semantics are negligible. I think there is a substantive difference between transferring data to third parties and over whom neither the person the data describes nor Google exercises control and retaining the data internally and using it to provide a service to third parties. And I think that is a critical difference when it comes to privacy. I mean, you erase the distinction between a armed security guard (who sells a service which involves a firearm) and an arms dealer (who sells firearms).
guyzero 11y ago
The difference is not semantic. It's an immense difference. One is an ad inserted into your Visa statement, the other is Visa selling your personal data to third parties. Completely different.
curt15 11y ago
The incentives of those two business models could hardly be more different. The value of their services derives from the exclusivity of their data. It is directly in their financial interest to ensure that no one else can access that data.
Oletros 11y ago
> They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price If you're implying that advertisers can target an specific user, this is false

dragonwriter 11y ago

> They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price. That's not selling user information in the same way that Ford doesn't sell automobile factories. > They aren't directly selling the data itself Nor are they indirectly selling the data. No one else gets the data. > they are selling a service that is an extension of that data. They are using the data to produce a service that they are selling, in the same way that Ford uses a factory to make a car. No one else gets the data, in the same way that no one else gets the factory from Ford. > I think the semantics are negligible. I think there is a substantive difference between transferring data to third parties and over whom neither the person the data describes nor Google exercises control and retaining the data internally and using it to provide a service to third parties. And I think that is a critical difference when it comes to privacy. I mean, you erase the distinction between a armed security guard (who sells a service which involves a firearm) and an arms dealer (who sells firearms).

guyzero 11y ago

The difference is not semantic. It's an immense difference. One is an ad inserted into your Visa statement, the other is Visa selling your personal data to third parties. Completely different.

curt15 11y ago

The incentives of those two business models could hardly be more different. The value of their services derives from the exclusivity of their data. It is directly in their financial interest to ensure that no one else can access that data.

Oletros 11y ago

> They effectively sell user information by way of allowing their customers to target individuals for a price If you're implying that advertisers can target an specific user, this is false