> is for google to compensate users for their metadata using a price that is derived from the commercial gain yielded from harvesting the metadata But then the

> is for google to compensate users for their metadata using a price that is derived from the commercial gain yielded from harvesting the metadata But then the compensation users receive depends on whether Google gets a good deal or not, and it still leaves Google with immense power and control. And what about the users who value their privacy higher? They might decide not to use Google, but that's only useful if there is an alternative that can actually compete with Google. Maybe the compensation thing will increase Google's costs and make it easier for others to compete, but that seems unfair; why should Google have to compensate users, but not others? Any ruling would have to apply to everyone, because that's how common law systems work. So if everyone has to compensate users, then no one will gain an advantage over Google. So the end result is just that Google makes less money while still maintaining their monopoly, and innovation doesn't happen.