5 ms·

Should Google be allowed to sell fiber? I think the suggestion that carriers shouldn't do this is wrong and naive and here is why: User count should not ever

Should Google be allowed to sell fiber? I think the suggestion that carriers shouldn't do this is wrong and naive and here is why: User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. It inescapably results in fundamentally unethical business practices where users are exploited. That is google's business model and they stand uncontested today. Carriers that end up doing any amount of content monetization will never disrupt Google, but they can create pressure that drives the cost of ads down, making google's life harder. I think this is so important that I am happily willing to endure the judgement of everyone here. I know this is downvote bait, but I keep thinking at some point everyone here will see the net positive on all possible angles.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 10y ago
I can't parse this. Especially "User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts". Wat. I'm not seeing the connection between content monetisation and Google's ads business either.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  Google users number in the billions. Paying Google customers number in the millions. For example Google drive: http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ W/r/t ads: the carriers who are aggregating anonymous useage data and reselling it are not revolutionizing their revenue. They are deflating the value of ads. This cuts into Google profit margins.
  - ericd 10y ago
    The problem is that exponential implies a difference in growth rate. Clearer would be to say that user counts should never many orders of magnitude greater than paying customer counts. I don't agree with this, but it's clearer.
    - droopybuns 10y ago
      I concede your point. Exponential doesn't provide clarity where I want it.
manigandham 10y ago
> User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. This makes no sense. This is the backbone of the entire internet. Ethics and the value that users get from a company/service are all subjective, there's no hard rule that you can lay down like this.
- droopybuns 10y ago
  It makes plenty of sense. I am annoyed that you cast me as illogical simply because you disagree. Something has changed in modern discourse and your reaction has become distressingly common. Here is an article from 2012, enumerating the same point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/#4b997d71b445 http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-... Here is another from 2010: http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-youre-the-product http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you... If this is a new idea to you, you might want to consider broadening your debate network.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    This isn't a new idea or theory, it's older than the internet itself. So what? This is a tired argument that doesn't really make a point. People being "the product" isn't some inherently bad thing. These platforms have so many engaged users because they do actually deliver value to those users, whether you think so or not. Maybe you want to pay for a social network but others want it free and are fine with the trade-off. Both perspectives are fine and what's important is that you have a choice, but saying that "user counts should never be exponential of customer counts" still makes no sense as it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate. Does that really seem logical to you?
    - droopybuns 10y ago
      Strawman. >>it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate I'm not asking anyone to live to my values. Many others share them. I think the point that users should not exceed customers is easy to understand. Many people agree with me. Many others dont. I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 10y ago

I can't parse this. Especially "User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts". Wat. I'm not seeing the connection between content monetisation and Google's ads business either.

droopybuns 10y ago
Google users number in the billions. Paying Google customers number in the millions. For example Google drive: http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/google-drive-1m-paid-users/ W/r/t ads: the carriers who are aggregating anonymous useage data and reselling it are not revolutionizing their revenue. They are deflating the value of ads. This cuts into Google profit margins.
- ericd 10y ago
  The problem is that exponential implies a difference in growth rate. Clearer would be to say that user counts should never many orders of magnitude greater than paying customer counts. I don't agree with this, but it's clearer.
  - droopybuns 10y ago
    I concede your point. Exponential doesn't provide clarity where I want it.

manigandham 10y ago

> User count should not ever be exponential of customer counts. This makes no sense. This is the backbone of the entire internet. Ethics and the value that users get from a company/service are all subjective, there's no hard rule that you can lay down like this.

droopybuns 10y ago
It makes plenty of sense. I am annoyed that you cast me as illogical simply because you disagree. Something has changed in modern discourse and your reaction has become distressingly common. Here is an article from 2012, enumerating the same point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/#4b997d71b445 http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-... Here is another from 2010: http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-youre-the-product http://lifehacker.com/5697167/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you... If this is a new idea to you, you might want to consider broadening your debate network.
- manigandham 10y ago
  This isn't a new idea or theory, it's older than the internet itself. So what? This is a tired argument that doesn't really make a point. People being "the product" isn't some inherently bad thing. These platforms have so many engaged users because they do actually deliver value to those users, whether you think so or not. Maybe you want to pay for a social network but others want it free and are fine with the trade-off. Both perspectives are fine and what's important is that you have a choice, but saying that "user counts should never be exponential of customer counts" still makes no sense as it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate. Does that really seem logical to you?
  - droopybuns 10y ago
    Strawman. >>it not up to you to decide everyone else's fate I'm not asking anyone to live to my values. Many others share them. I think the point that users should not exceed customers is easy to understand. Many people agree with me. Many others dont. I have turned down an offer at Google because I couldn't reconcile the bad stuff. I wish more people agreed with me, but I don't say that those who don't are illogical. They simply have different values. That is OK if you value diversity.