4 ms·
Just no. Ignore the hyperbole in the article and the crux boils down to this: - Using GA means you're paying for your analytics with your users' privacy. The
by spinningslate 6y ago
Just no. Ignore the hyperbole in the article and the crux boils down to this:
- Using GA means you're paying for your analytics with your users' privacy.
The product is 'good' iff (if and only if) you're willing to accept those economics and ethics. You want analytics; that suggests they has some value to you. You don't want to pay cash money for it. That's your choice.
But it's not free. Your users are paying for your analytics with their data.
GA is far from a charity. It's a key part of the surveillance machine at the front end of the advertising pipeline.
>They think of all the users, not just corporations.
Yes. They mine users to sell ads to corporations. If you use GA, you are deciding that you're willing to support that. Google gives you analytics, you give them your users' data. Simple as that.
- m1117 6y agoExactly, paying with data for most people is cheaper than paying with money. I'd say that's a great compromise.
- spinningslate 6y agoand that's perfectly fine when you're deciding to pay with your data for value you're getting. The point with GA is you're paying with other people's data. Without explicitly asking them for permission. (And no, cookie permissions don't count as "asking them for permission").
- charcircuit 6y agoGA gives people the option if they want to enable / disable usage for ad personalization.