5 ms·

We all hate ads, no doubt about it. But I don't like the way media is going about accusing Comcast and Verizon for what the consumers brought upon themselves. C

We all hate ads, no doubt about it. But I don't like the way media is going about accusing Comcast and Verizon for what the consumers brought upon themselves. Comcast/Verizon simply want exactly what Google does. AFAIK, Google does not "prompt" me saying that they mine my data and use it to show ads. In fact, I just tried creating a gmail account and there is no such explicit popup dialog that tell me this information. Same goes for facebook. There should be a popup saying "We use your data to show you ads". As simple as that. But no. There is no such thing. This is the same that Verizon/Comcast wants to do. Provide an arbitrary service (i.e ISP) and also do something else with the data. Just because, I _pay_ comcast but don't pay Google does not relinquish Google from the responsibility. IMO, we need new internet/tech laws that explicitly cover companies that monetize user data. Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two.

kumarm 10y ago
We don't pay any money to google to use their service. We pay to Comcast and Verizon for the service they provide.
- newsat13 10y ago
  Huh? Did you read what I wrote? I said exactly that. Why does not paying money absolve Google of anything? So, if you sign up for my free SaaS service, I can do whatever with your data?
  - pixl97 10y ago
    > I can do whatever with your data? Yes, pretty much. It is very unlikely you are a monopoly with your SaaS, and it is very unlikely you are holding my protected data like medical records.
- franciscop 10y ago
  This is the same as cinemas showing 20-30 min advertising for a movie you paid for, or airports forcing you to go through dozens of shops to get to the plane. I stopped going to the cinema and download the movies for this reason but of course I didn't stop taking planes. Apparently in the US you cannot really choose your ISP so it's gonna be bad...
Godel_unicode 10y ago
Google doesn't have a natural monopoly in most of the country, and the ISPs do. Couple that with no ISP equivalent of ctrl+shift+n, and there you are (VPNs are just replacing one ISP with another).
- newsat13 10y ago
  Anonymous mode is really just a placebo. All it does it keep your browser history clean. Don't be fooled that Google does not know it's you. Google can easily track you using the IP address. This is really as simple as I saw this dude login with this IP. Now I see the same IP but don't see a session cookie. I can say pretty much for sure that it's that dude in anonymous mode. Note that bing already does this kind of IP based profile building. I am 100% sure Google does this already.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    IPs change over time(sometimes extremely quickly), and multiple people, including thousands of individuals, can share a single IP address. Maybe companies use IP as some kind of signal(I have no idea), but it isn't a very precise signal. I do notice that creepy stalker-style ads about specific products I recently searched for no longer pop up when I browse in anonymous mode.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Verizon doesn't have a monopoly almost anywhere. It competes with cable, and satellite throughout almost its whole service area. Now, if you want to argue "we'll, satellite isn't as good," you could say the same for Bing and DDG.
  - pixl97 10y ago
    A monopoly and duopoly really aren't that different. If one profits by doing something unethical, the other will do it in a heartbeat. This is commonly seen in pricing in markets with view competitors and high costs of entry.
Throwaway23412 10y ago
The problem is that Google and Facebook aren't ISPs. One doesn't have to use Goog/FB to use the Internet. There are other search engines and social networks. One can log out of their Goog/FB account. For most Americans, only one or two ISPs are available where they live.
awalton 10y ago
> Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. Verizon is the pipe we move data over - it's the road. "Google" is the service at the other end of the pipe - it's our destination. Verizon is unhappy with being the pipe, despite that literally being the business they signed up to be in. They have decided that the destinations make more money than they can ever squeeze out of being the road service. So, they hatched a plan... Verizon is now trying to use the fact that we're going to "Google" to instead funnel customers into their destinations - "You don't need "Google", use "Verizoogle" instead!" Verizon also wants to install toll lanes on their roads such that even using "Google" proper costs you extra. And it costs "Google" extra too, because why only charge in one direction? Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem? The problem isn't Verizon; the problem is voters who allow their representatives to remain in office without passing legislation to fix this. Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base.
  - ant6n 10y ago
    So companies cannot be responsible for anything, it's the laws! Oh and of course the law makers aren't responsible for anything, it's the voters! Very convenient, especially given how the dysfunctional US electoral system means voting for change isn't possible.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - awalton 10y ago
    > Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base. I can blame both. Ethical companies will not abuse a bad law, nor will they pay millions to lobby to break laws, or use the Citizen's United ruling to pour money into electing people who will pass laws they want. It's hard to even see how it is possible to vote against them now that they've got billions of dollars to make any decision they see fit law, simply by squeezing the arm of whichever tool they installed in the legislator. But maybe we should blame the Supreme Court - if only that too wasn't gamed by politicians baselessly denying the nomination of first Garland and now Gorsuch as retaliation. Corruption is corruption, whether it is political or commercial.
icebraining 10y ago
Google actually does prompt me regularly, telling me that they process my data to show me ads based on it: http://www.darrenmothersele.com/img/blog/google-popup.png http://www.darrenmothersele.com/img/blog/google-popup.png
- dsacco 10y ago
  On the search query, "1984." Good sense of humor on Google's part.
heavymark 10y ago
But Google and Facebook are Free, so giving are data is a way of paying for that. Comcast and Verizon we already pay for, so they are double dipping. Also Google/Facebook can prioritize their content over competitors, where is as an ISP with the changing laws Comcast/Verizon could. If Verizon wants to offer its services for free, then yes I believe if we allow it with Google/Facebook we should allow with it Verizon. Now of course Google/Facebook shouldn't either, but to say that Comcast/Verizon should be able to because Google/Facebook does not appear to hold because of the difference in pricing.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  The "there is no free lunch" argument has been used all the time, while I am okay with tracking to some moderate degree (I am okay if Google / FB shows me deals or relevant links), I don't think it's acceptable that free service automatically means service provider can take my data and my trust for granted. You can opt out not using Google. You can probably use DNT (there are three options and it's confusing plus DNT isn't something websites and advertisers really honor these days, was a shit show), and some services also include opt-out button for certain data to be not collected. But you can't opt-out not using your ISP since your ISP owns the pipe. That is a huge concern. With Verizon's notorious history of tracking users, modifying unencrypted HTTP requests, scares a lot of people, even if you aren't privacy conservative, you should be concerned.
blitmap 10y ago
You make a decent point, but it's like saying "we need these protections codified in our laws, get to work lawmakers!" while resigning ourselves to months or even years of abuse by these corporations. The problem is, an ISP can do far more abuse from their opportune position - rather than Facebook's. We cannot protect ourselves well enough from an ISP like we can by simply not using Facebook. A VPN is a great aid to privacy but severely limits the usefulness of the broadband speeds we paid for in the first place. And the vast majority of us cannot find new service from another ISP who cares about our concerns. Once again the consumer loses.
empath75 10y ago
The problem with Comcast and google is that in many cases they have a monopoly on broadband internet. If you need internet for work or anything else, you don't really have an alternative.
zkms 10y ago
> This is the same that Verizon/Comcast wants to do. Provide an arbitrary service (i.e ISP) and also do something else with the data. > Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. The difference lies in that it's rather easy to escape Google's purview -- if you don't like Gmail, you can pay for any one of multiple paid email services that don't monetise anything beyond your credit card. I do exactly that. With Comcast/Verizon, it's a lot harder to access an alternative service -- both have spent decades building up nationwide networks and use their quasi-monopoly statuses in anti-competitive ways (at every level and scale, see stuff like municipal/local rules around utility poles and other rights-of-way for fibre and coax). It's trivial for me to shell out a few dollars per month to access another email service that doesn't do ads and doesn't monetise my data. It's orders of magnitude more painful and expensive for me to access internet with something other than the duopoly of shitty DSL or shitty Comcast DOCSIS service.
munificent 10y ago
> Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. Let's say you decide Google is bad and you want to stop using it. What do you do? 1. Instead of typing "google.com" into your browser, you type in "duckduckgo.com", "bing.com", or any of a bazillion other sites. There you go, done. Now let's say you decide you don't like Comcast and want to switch to a different ISP, what do you do? 1. Nothing. Comcast is probably the only ISP in your area. Sorry. No new ISP for you! Or (Advanced users only): 1. Convince another ISP to open in your area. This may involve investing hundreds of millions of dollars in running physical cable and stuff like that. 2. Wait several years for the relevant infrastructure to be installed. 3. Switch to that one other ISP. 4. Discover that it isn't noticeably better because it turns out a duopoly isn't much more effective at encouraging efficiency than a monopoly is. 5. A year or two later, Comcast buys out the other ISP. Markets are only efficient (read: "work") when barriers to entry for producers and switching costs for consumers are low. Both of those are very very true for web sites. They are very very not true for ISPs.

kumarm 10y ago

We don't pay any money to google to use their service. We pay to Comcast and Verizon for the service they provide.

newsat13 10y ago
Huh? Did you read what I wrote? I said exactly that. Why does not paying money absolve Google of anything? So, if you sign up for my free SaaS service, I can do whatever with your data?
- pixl97 10y ago
  > I can do whatever with your data? Yes, pretty much. It is very unlikely you are a monopoly with your SaaS, and it is very unlikely you are holding my protected data like medical records.
franciscop 10y ago
This is the same as cinemas showing 20-30 min advertising for a movie you paid for, or airports forcing you to go through dozens of shops to get to the plane. I stopped going to the cinema and download the movies for this reason but of course I didn't stop taking planes. Apparently in the US you cannot really choose your ISP so it's gonna be bad...

Godel_unicode 10y ago

Google doesn't have a natural monopoly in most of the country, and the ISPs do. Couple that with no ISP equivalent of ctrl+shift+n, and there you are (VPNs are just replacing one ISP with another).

newsat13 10y ago
Anonymous mode is really just a placebo. All it does it keep your browser history clean. Don't be fooled that Google does not know it's you. Google can easily track you using the IP address. This is really as simple as I saw this dude login with this IP. Now I see the same IP but don't see a session cookie. I can say pretty much for sure that it's that dude in anonymous mode. Note that bing already does this kind of IP based profile building. I am 100% sure Google does this already.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  IPs change over time(sometimes extremely quickly), and multiple people, including thousands of individuals, can share a single IP address. Maybe companies use IP as some kind of signal(I have no idea), but it isn't a very precise signal. I do notice that creepy stalker-style ads about specific products I recently searched for no longer pop up when I browse in anonymous mode.
rayiner 10y ago
Verizon doesn't have a monopoly almost anywhere. It competes with cable, and satellite throughout almost its whole service area. Now, if you want to argue "we'll, satellite isn't as good," you could say the same for Bing and DDG.
- pixl97 10y ago
  A monopoly and duopoly really aren't that different. If one profits by doing something unethical, the other will do it in a heartbeat. This is commonly seen in pricing in markets with view competitors and high costs of entry.

Throwaway23412 10y ago

The problem is that Google and Facebook aren't ISPs. One doesn't have to use Goog/FB to use the Internet. There are other search engines and social networks. One can log out of their Goog/FB account. For most Americans, only one or two ISPs are available where they live.

awalton 10y ago

> Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. Verizon is the pipe we move data over - it's the road. "Google" is the service at the other end of the pipe - it's our destination. Verizon is unhappy with being the pipe, despite that literally being the business they signed up to be in. They have decided that the destinations make more money than they can ever squeeze out of being the road service. So, they hatched a plan... Verizon is now trying to use the fact that we're going to "Google" to instead funnel customers into their destinations - "You don't need "Google", use "Verizoogle" instead!" Verizon also wants to install toll lanes on their roads such that even using "Google" proper costs you extra. And it costs "Google" extra too, because why only charge in one direction? Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem?

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem? The problem isn't Verizon; the problem is voters who allow their representatives to remain in office without passing legislation to fix this. Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base.
- ant6n 10y ago
  So companies cannot be responsible for anything, it's the laws! Oh and of course the law makers aren't responsible for anything, it's the voters! Very convenient, especially given how the dysfunctional US electoral system means voting for change isn't possible.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- awalton 10y ago
  > Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base. I can blame both. Ethical companies will not abuse a bad law, nor will they pay millions to lobby to break laws, or use the Citizen's United ruling to pour money into electing people who will pass laws they want. It's hard to even see how it is possible to vote against them now that they've got billions of dollars to make any decision they see fit law, simply by squeezing the arm of whichever tool they installed in the legislator. But maybe we should blame the Supreme Court - if only that too wasn't gamed by politicians baselessly denying the nomination of first Garland and now Gorsuch as retaliation. Corruption is corruption, whether it is political or commercial.

icebraining 10y ago

Google actually does prompt me regularly, telling me that they process my data to show me ads based on it: http://www.darrenmothersele.com/img/blog/google-popup.png http://www.darrenmothersele.com/img/blog/google-popup.png

dsacco 10y ago
On the search query, "1984." Good sense of humor on Google's part.

heavymark 10y ago

But Google and Facebook are Free, so giving are data is a way of paying for that. Comcast and Verizon we already pay for, so they are double dipping. Also Google/Facebook can prioritize their content over competitors, where is as an ISP with the changing laws Comcast/Verizon could. If Verizon wants to offer its services for free, then yes I believe if we allow it with Google/Facebook we should allow with it Verizon. Now of course Google/Facebook shouldn't either, but to say that Comcast/Verizon should be able to because Google/Facebook does not appear to hold because of the difference in pricing.

yeukhon 10y ago
The "there is no free lunch" argument has been used all the time, while I am okay with tracking to some moderate degree (I am okay if Google / FB shows me deals or relevant links), I don't think it's acceptable that free service automatically means service provider can take my data and my trust for granted. You can opt out not using Google. You can probably use DNT (there are three options and it's confusing plus DNT isn't something websites and advertisers really honor these days, was a shit show), and some services also include opt-out button for certain data to be not collected. But you can't opt-out not using your ISP since your ISP owns the pipe. That is a huge concern. With Verizon's notorious history of tracking users, modifying unencrypted HTTP requests, scares a lot of people, even if you aren't privacy conservative, you should be concerned.

blitmap 10y ago

You make a decent point, but it's like saying "we need these protections codified in our laws, get to work lawmakers!" while resigning ourselves to months or even years of abuse by these corporations. The problem is, an ISP can do far more abuse from their opportune position - rather than Facebook's. We cannot protect ourselves well enough from an ISP like we can by simply not using Facebook. A VPN is a great aid to privacy but severely limits the usefulness of the broadband speeds we paid for in the first place. And the vast majority of us cannot find new service from another ISP who cares about our concerns. Once again the consumer loses.

empath75 10y ago

The problem with Comcast and google is that in many cases they have a monopoly on broadband internet. If you need internet for work or anything else, you don't really have an alternative.

zkms 10y ago

> This is the same that Verizon/Comcast wants to do. Provide an arbitrary service (i.e ISP) and also do something else with the data. > Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. The difference lies in that it's rather easy to escape Google's purview -- if you don't like Gmail, you can pay for any one of multiple paid email services that don't monetise anything beyond your credit card. I do exactly that. With Comcast/Verizon, it's a lot harder to access an alternative service -- both have spent decades building up nationwide networks and use their quasi-monopoly statuses in anti-competitive ways (at every level and scale, see stuff like municipal/local rules around utility poles and other rights-of-way for fibre and coax). It's trivial for me to shell out a few dollars per month to access another email service that doesn't do ads and doesn't monetise my data. It's orders of magnitude more painful and expensive for me to access internet with something other than the duopoly of shitty DSL or shitty Comcast DOCSIS service.

munificent 10y ago

> Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. Let's say you decide Google is bad and you want to stop using it. What do you do? 1. Instead of typing "google.com" into your browser, you type in "duckduckgo.com", "bing.com", or any of a bazillion other sites. There you go, done. Now let's say you decide you don't like Comcast and want to switch to a different ISP, what do you do? 1. Nothing. Comcast is probably the only ISP in your area. Sorry. No new ISP for you! Or (Advanced users only): 1. Convince another ISP to open in your area. This may involve investing hundreds of millions of dollars in running physical cable and stuff like that. 2. Wait several years for the relevant infrastructure to be installed. 3. Switch to that one other ISP. 4. Discover that it isn't noticeably better because it turns out a duopoly isn't much more effective at encouraging efficiency than a monopoly is. 5. A year or two later, Comcast buys out the other ISP. Markets are only efficient (read: "work") when barriers to entry for producers and switching costs for consumers are low. Both of those are very very true for web sites. They are very very not true for ISPs.