4 ms·
There's no incentive for people to do that: things like maps, search, and gmail are fantastic products, and on the other side of the equation it doesn't negati
by da39a3ee 4y ago
There's no incentive for people to do that: things like maps, search, and gmail are fantastic products, and on the other side of the equation it doesn't negatively impact my life in the slightest to have google profiting from having access to private information about my life. That's the case for the vast majority of people; their private lives aren't interesting enough for there to be any reason to avoid selling them to tech companies in exchange for excellent products. So it's quite deliberate; it's not a stupid mistake that people are making due to lack of thought processes in their thick skulls. On the contrary, it's the population of people voicing your opinion that is making the mistake in their risk analysis: you are both wildly overestimating the probability that something genuinely bad will happen and also overestimating the extent to which your private life is interesting to anyone else.
- citizenpaul 4y ago> it doesn't negatively impact my life It will. You will see some day.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- da39a3ee 4y agoWhat's an example of a way in which you hypothesize it will negatively impact my life?
- wizofaus 4y agoThat's pretty much how I've always seen it. Though I suspect a very large % of Google product users don't even give it a second thought that if they're getting something for "free" they must be paying in some sort of hidden/indirect manner. I'm actually a fan of targeting advertising too - when it's done well it can genuinely be a useful sort of information that can assist in deciding what products to buy. What I don't get is why it's so often not very smart (e.g. getting tonnes of ads for a product that I literally just bought and couldn't even have received yet given shipping times).