4 ms·
I am not saying that the service is not useful. It certainly is . What I am arguing is that it requires the users to do some amount of work and so it is not fre
by mrighele 10y ago
I am not saying that the service is not useful. It certainly is . What I am arguing is that it requires the users to do some amount of work and so it is not free for them, and I am of the opinion that Google benefit from it much more than I do.
Anyway, I am not completely against it, as I said above depending on the situation I make use of it.
- geofft 10y agoIt's the usual comparative-advantage thing, though. Five seconds of your brain reading something is essentially worthless to you (unless someone is paying you to read this comment), but of value to Google. The resource behind the CAPTCHA is of minimal value to Google (what are they going to do with an account at startup-of-the-month), but of more value to you. The transaction is mutually beneficial. The value Google gets from the thing they want, and the value you get from the thing you want, aren't particularly comparable.
- Karunamon 10y agoThe alternative would be you're doing different work (i.e. more intellectually demanding) on each different site as they invent their own CAPTCHA, and rather than benefitting anybody, it would just be an annoyance between you and the content you want to reach. IMO, this is strictly better.