3 ms·

Can you explain how exactly charging their users money is a better long term business model for Google than selling their data? If you don’t count the threat of

Can you explain how exactly charging their users money is a better long term business model for Google than selling their data? If you don’t count the threat of regulation (since you say it won’t solve the issue) I can’t think of a single piece of evidence supporting that. It sounds like your reasoning is “users will eventually wake up!” which I would bet a lot of money will never happen.

pdonis 6y ago
> Can you explain how exactly charging their users money is a better long term business model for Google than selling their data? Because long term, users will realize that letting their data be sold is bad for them and will stop considering it acceptable. Indeed, that is already happening. And so, as I said, Google will have to continually become more and more evil to try to prop up their business model by further obfuscating what they are doing, until it becomes unsustainable and they crash. > It sounds like your reasoning is “users will eventually wake up!” More like: when enough users have suffered serious harm from having their data sold (which is only a matter of time--plenty of users already have suffered harm due to Google's incessant seeking after data--see for example all the furor over the "real names" policy, which was not just Google but they took plenty of flak for it), it will stop being considered acceptable. (Users who already correctly foresee such harms, like me, are already taking whatever precautions we can to avoid providing the data in the first place. I don't use Facebook, I don't use Twitter, I don't use any other social medial "platforms", the only Google services I use are search and maps, and I never click on ads. And I would be glad to pay Google directly for search and maps, if only they would let me do so in order to avoid having what data I do provide them sold to third parties. In fact, given that "freemium" is now a recognized business model, I don't see why they aren't trying it.) > which I would bet a lot of money will never happen. Then I assume you are long Google?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > Because long term, users will realize that letting their data be sold is bad for them and will stop considering it acceptable. Indeed, that is already happening. It's happening at the fringes, in communities that are already more privacy-conscious. I haven't seen any signs of a groundswell of support for this position. > Then I assume you are long Google? No, I was speaking figuratively; I don't have any desire to profit off surveillance capitalism. I simply see regulation as a far more likely solution than users demanding an ethical business model with their wallets.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > I simply see regulation as a far more likely solution than users demanding an ethical business model with their wallets. In the short term, I agree we're far more likely to get regulation than a significant change in user demand. I do not, however, think any regulation we get will be a "solution".

pdonis 6y ago

> Can you explain how exactly charging their users money is a better long term business model for Google than selling their data? Because long term, users will realize that letting their data be sold is bad for them and will stop considering it acceptable. Indeed, that is already happening. And so, as I said, Google will have to continually become more and more evil to try to prop up their business model by further obfuscating what they are doing, until it becomes unsustainable and they crash. > It sounds like your reasoning is “users will eventually wake up!” More like: when enough users have suffered serious harm from having their data sold (which is only a matter of time--plenty of users already have suffered harm due to Google's incessant seeking after data--see for example all the furor over the "real names" policy, which was not just Google but they took plenty of flak for it), it will stop being considered acceptable. (Users who already correctly foresee such harms, like me, are already taking whatever precautions we can to avoid providing the data in the first place. I don't use Facebook, I don't use Twitter, I don't use any other social medial "platforms", the only Google services I use are search and maps, and I never click on ads. And I would be glad to pay Google directly for search and maps, if only they would let me do so in order to avoid having what data I do provide them sold to third parties. In fact, given that "freemium" is now a recognized business model, I don't see why they aren't trying it.) > which I would bet a lot of money will never happen. Then I assume you are long Google?

jakelazaroff 6y ago
> Because long term, users will realize that letting their data be sold is bad for them and will stop considering it acceptable. Indeed, that is already happening. It's happening at the fringes, in communities that are already more privacy-conscious. I haven't seen any signs of a groundswell of support for this position. > Then I assume you are long Google? No, I was speaking figuratively; I don't have any desire to profit off surveillance capitalism. I simply see regulation as a far more likely solution than users demanding an ethical business model with their wallets.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > I simply see regulation as a far more likely solution than users demanding an ethical business model with their wallets. In the short term, I agree we're far more likely to get regulation than a significant change in user demand. I do not, however, think any regulation we get will be a "solution".