3 ms·

Why do you pin the blame for this on Amazon and not Google for mining private e-mails to up it's e-commerce initiatives?

by influx 4y ago

CharlesW 4y ago
Not the parent, but Amazon should be blamed because (1) it's not optional (opt-in would be fine), (2) it breaks the customer experience (these emails are now just complete useless noise), and (3) it broke useful services.
jfim 4y ago
There was a service that one could register for a couple of years ago (Paribus I believe) that would automatically scan your Amazon emails and request a price match from Amazon if the price dropped. I believe that's the primary reason as to why they dropped it. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/free-money-of-a-sort-paribus-gets-you-refunds-118234282094.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/free-money-of-a-sort-paribus-...
mattzito 4y ago
I will continue to emphasize that Google does not mine your private emails, full stop, for both free and paid users. https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en In fact, none of your data in any Workspace product is used for advertising or personalization purposes. Your web search history is used to generate ads on consumer gmail, and if you're a paid gmail user, there are no ads at all. (Disclosure: I worked on Workspace for three years until about a year ago. The amount of controls and security on user data is quite intense.)
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  As long as data exists there will be incentive to have it pay for itself. Many at google and other places were surprised to find they were working with the NSA via an offer “they couldn’t refuse.” This stuff is decided at a higher pay grade than worker bees, who are unaware barring leaks.
- bin_bash 4y ago
  it's weird to me you didn't mention that they only stopped in 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html
  - mattzito 4y ago
    I thought about it, but I wasn’t at google in 2017, so I have no context for thr decision or what was happening before that. It’s also worth noting that paid users were never subject to this, including people who were free google apps for your domain users.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Why would I trust a company that both has a business incentive to lie, has the technical ability to hide it (so many factors go into ad targeting that it's impossible to confidently say which information was used for its targeting), has proven its bad faith several times such as with their non-GDPR compliant "consent" flow that up until very recently didn't give you an option to decline (despite being required by the GDPR), is a monopoly and has lock-in (email addresses aren't portable) and operates in a regulatory environment where the regulators are asleep at the wheel (GDPR enforcement is severely lacking especially for such big companies even when blatant bad-faith is demonstrated)? If you still believe them, would you be interested in a bridge? I have one for sale at a very good price, email in my profile!
vineyardmike 4y ago
Amazon didn’t have to play defensive against google (IF your claim is true). Amazon took a deliberate step to change their system. That’s solely on them. Amazon is always to blame for actions Amazon makes. Everyone is always to blame for their own actions! (Maybe legal requirements not withstanding)

Why do you pin the blame for this on Amazon and not Google for mining private e-mails to up it's e-commerce initiatives?

by influx 4y ago

Why do you pin the blame for this on Amazon and not Google for mining private e-mails to up it's e-commerce initiatives?

CharlesW 4y ago

Not the parent, but Amazon should be blamed because (1) it's not optional (opt-in would be fine), (2) it breaks the customer experience (these emails are now just complete useless noise), and (3) it broke useful services.

jfim 4y ago

There was a service that one could register for a couple of years ago (Paribus I believe) that would automatically scan your Amazon emails and request a price match from Amazon if the price dropped. I believe that's the primary reason as to why they dropped it. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/free-money-of-a-sort-paribus-gets-you-refunds-118234282094.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/free-money-of-a-sort-paribus-...

mattzito 4y ago

I will continue to emphasize that Google does not mine your private emails, full stop, for both free and paid users. https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en In fact, none of your data in any Workspace product is used for advertising or personalization purposes. Your web search history is used to generate ads on consumer gmail, and if you're a paid gmail user, there are no ads at all. (Disclosure: I worked on Workspace for three years until about a year ago. The amount of controls and security on user data is quite intense.)

mixmastamyk 4y ago
As long as data exists there will be incentive to have it pay for itself. Many at google and other places were surprised to find they were working with the NSA via an offer “they couldn’t refuse.” This stuff is decided at a higher pay grade than worker bees, who are unaware barring leaks.
bin_bash 4y ago
it's weird to me you didn't mention that they only stopped in 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html
- mattzito 4y ago
  I thought about it, but I wasn’t at google in 2017, so I have no context for thr decision or what was happening before that. It’s also worth noting that paid users were never subject to this, including people who were free google apps for your domain users.
Nextgrid 4y ago
Why would I trust a company that both has a business incentive to lie, has the technical ability to hide it (so many factors go into ad targeting that it's impossible to confidently say which information was used for its targeting), has proven its bad faith several times such as with their non-GDPR compliant "consent" flow that up until very recently didn't give you an option to decline (despite being required by the GDPR), is a monopoly and has lock-in (email addresses aren't portable) and operates in a regulatory environment where the regulators are asleep at the wheel (GDPR enforcement is severely lacking especially for such big companies even when blatant bad-faith is demonstrated)? If you still believe them, would you be interested in a bridge? I have one for sale at a very good price, email in my profile!

vineyardmike 4y ago

Amazon didn’t have to play defensive against google (IF your claim is true). Amazon took a deliberate step to change their system. That’s solely on them. Amazon is always to blame for actions Amazon makes. Everyone is always to blame for their own actions! (Maybe legal requirements not withstanding)