4 ms·

Disagree. Yes, government regulation would be nice. But it's a little unfair to accuse the OP of trying to reinvent government by proposing that consumers org

Disagree. Yes, government regulation would be nice. But it's a little unfair to accuse the OP of trying to reinvent government by proposing that consumers organize outside of government. People organize to engage in collective action outside of governments all the time. In addition to labor unions, consider civil society nonprofits. It's not bizarre or (as another comment suggested) some kind of tech-bro magical thinking to say "hey, the government isn't regulating this group of people, let's organize to get some collective power going."

xhkkffbf 6y ago
Absolutely. And remember we're not customers, we're the product. So you might call us workers too.
- geofft 6y ago
  We're the "product" of services like advertising, but I've seen very few individuals express opinions on Google's advertising product (beyond "stop," or at best "stop tracking me"). Our opinions tend to be on services like Gmail and Drive and Reader and Hangouts. In that case, we're closer to a customer - or more accurately, we're a positive externality. Google does offer paid support for most of these services, including an account rep that you can actually talk to in person. But you have to be paying for them. Individuals who use Gmail for free are effectively just publicity for Google so they can convince large employers to pay them for Gmail.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    > Individuals who use Gmail for free are effectively just publicity for Google so they can convince large employers to pay them for Gmail. I don't think this is accurate. Having users logged in while using Google Search is worth far, far more to Google than the GSuite sales bump from having free Gmail users.
airza 6y ago
The magical thinking comes from trying to organize a significant portion of Google's customer base (all android phone users, all google search users, etc) spontaneously into a body that can really damage their value proposition financially. In a labor union _all_ of the value is generated by a bunch of people who are geographically close together and able to organize more easily :)
- paultopia 6y ago
  Oh sure, that would be extremely difficult for lots of reasons. But I took OP to be asking in good faith if those difficulties could be surpassed, not assuming they could be.

xhkkffbf 6y ago

Absolutely. And remember we're not customers, we're the product. So you might call us workers too.

geofft 6y ago
We're the "product" of services like advertising, but I've seen very few individuals express opinions on Google's advertising product (beyond "stop," or at best "stop tracking me"). Our opinions tend to be on services like Gmail and Drive and Reader and Hangouts. In that case, we're closer to a customer - or more accurately, we're a positive externality. Google does offer paid support for most of these services, including an account rep that you can actually talk to in person. But you have to be paying for them. Individuals who use Gmail for free are effectively just publicity for Google so they can convince large employers to pay them for Gmail.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > Individuals who use Gmail for free are effectively just publicity for Google so they can convince large employers to pay them for Gmail. I don't think this is accurate. Having users logged in while using Google Search is worth far, far more to Google than the GSuite sales bump from having free Gmail users.

airza 6y ago

The magical thinking comes from trying to organize a significant portion of Google's customer base (all android phone users, all google search users, etc) spontaneously into a body that can really damage their value proposition financially. In a labor union _all_ of the value is generated by a bunch of people who are geographically close together and able to organize more easily :)

paultopia 6y ago
Oh sure, that would be extremely difficult for lots of reasons. But I took OP to be asking in good faith if those difficulties could be surpassed, not assuming they could be.