8 ms·

Yes, and that's great. They don't want surveillance Capitalism.

Aunche 3y ago
One of my friends works for a European adtech company. Unlike the companies I mentioned above, they don't do anything except manage online ads for brands. After iOS and Android enhanced their privacy settings, they lost a substantial portion of their business. I'm guessing that this is the type of business that the EU is trying to protect.
aurareturn 3y ago
99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.
- veave 3y ago
  [flagged]
- piva00 3y ago
  > I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough. This happens exactly because there is no competition and hence antitrust is needed. I don't want to be using services from Google/Facebook/Microsoft but there's no competition and then I end up using their services even when trying to avoid it as most as possible... If the prices for services would go up without surveillance capitalism so be it, that's the real price, I want to choose to pay for it, not be coerced into giving them my data for their "free" services. I don't have that option right now, nor anyone else, why are you against freedom of choice?
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Did you subscribe to Neeva? It was a search engine developed by an ex Google exec. It had no ads, no tracking. It required a subscription to use. Most people who used it said the search results were great. It shut down because no one wanted to pay for it.
    - piva00 3y ago
      Yes, I did. And I subscribe to Kagi right now (since Nov/2022) after Neeva, and will keep trying to find paid search solutions if Kagi ever goes belly up.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        Great. So there are plenty of choices, both paid and free. Why did you say there's no competition?
        piva00 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 3y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack and please avoid tit-for-tat spats on HN, regardless of how bad someone's comments are or you feel they are. We're trying for just the opposite here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        aurareturn 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 3y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack and please avoid tit-for-tat spats on HN, regardless of how bad someone's comments are or you feel they are. We're trying for just the opposite here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  >99% of the people don't care. People do care. They just don't have much, if any, choice.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    They do. Neeva, founded by a former Google exec, built a search engine that had no ads and no tracking. No surveillance capital. They just shut down because no one wanted to pay for it - hence the idea that 99% don't care about surveillance capital enough. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      1. Neeva sounds like a hairspray brand. Not a search engine. 2. It's literally just a claim. I have no way of verifying the claim. Them asking me to pay for it makes it more sus. 3. I use searx already. Which I can confirm isn’t “spying” on me because it has nothing to tie me to my IRL identity. 4. It was a Bing reseller. I don’t care for Bing resellers.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        The point is that it had no "surveillance capitalism". It failed because no one cares about that enough - proving that people prefer free with data mining/ads over subscriptions for many internet products.
        comte7092 3y ago
        >It failed because no one cares about that enough You say that like there aren’t numerous other competitors in the space: DuckDuckGo, Kagi, Brave, searx, qwant, startpage, etc, etc. These services provide both paid and ad based models. Neeva failed because of its own issues. I am in their target market and I had never even heard of them until they shut down. Starting any business is extremely challenging, one failing doesn’t imply there was no market.
- mattkevan 3y ago
  Maybe businesses without a legitimate business model shouldn’t be in business?
  - brap 3y ago
    These businesses earn billions from customers that are gladly paying for their services, because they get value out of it. You call the business "illegitimate", but there are literally millions of paying customers that disagree with you, and they put their money where their mouth is. A lot of money.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Today I learned that most people on HN does not understand basic economics. Or maybe they do but their comments are clouded by their hatred of big tech. Not referring to you brap.
- bakuninsbart 3y ago
  I'd be happy to pay 250€ a year for an OS that I actually own and control. I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on. I'm actually worth less as a target for advertisement. These products not existing is just a failure of the market and maybe of our education, which is why it is important for governments to step in at that point.
  - brap 3y ago
    >I'd be happy to pay 250€ a year for an OS that I actually own and control. That's cool. And do you think many people will also happily pay 250€ every year? Do you think enough people care so make this a profitable business? And if so, why isn't there one yet? If there is, why aren't you a happy paying customer? >I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on. Same question. >These products not existing is just a failure of the market Is it? Or is the market simply responding to (lack of) demand? It seems to me that many people on HN forget that we're just part of a very small bubble, a niche. We're a tiny target segment, we're not very good at paying for things, and frankly we make pretty shitty customers for various of other reasons. Instead of admitting that we're not that valuable to businesses, we project our own desires onto others, and when we don't get what we want because it's not profitable, we expect the government to step in and force someone else pay for it.
  - megous 3y ago
    Such OSes do exist. You don't even have to pay.

One of my friends works for a European adtech company. Unlike the companies I mentioned above, they don't do anything except manage online ads for brands. After iOS and Android enhanced their privacy settings, they lost a substantial portion of their business. I'm guessing that this is the type of business that the EU is trying to protect.

aurareturn 3y ago

99% of the people don't care. That's why there are 2.1 billion people on Facebook. Without surveillance capitalism, prices for services would go up or would cease to be free. The ad-driven business model is a legitimate one. I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough.

veave 3y ago
[flagged]
piva00 3y ago
> I assume that you use a free service from Google/Facebook/Microsoft? So you must not care about surveillance capitalism either. At least not care enough. This happens exactly because there is no competition and hence antitrust is needed. I don't want to be using services from Google/Facebook/Microsoft but there's no competition and then I end up using their services even when trying to avoid it as most as possible... If the prices for services would go up without surveillance capitalism so be it, that's the real price, I want to choose to pay for it, not be coerced into giving them my data for their "free" services. I don't have that option right now, nor anyone else, why are you against freedom of choice?
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Did you subscribe to Neeva? It was a search engine developed by an ex Google exec. It had no ads, no tracking. It required a subscription to use. Most people who used it said the search results were great. It shut down because no one wanted to pay for it.
  - piva00 3y ago
    Yes, I did. And I subscribe to Kagi right now (since Nov/2022) after Neeva, and will keep trying to find paid search solutions if Kagi ever goes belly up.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Great. So there are plenty of choices, both paid and free. Why did you say there's no competition?
      - piva00 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 3y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack and please avoid tit-for-tat spats on HN, regardless of how bad someone's comments are or you feel they are. We're trying for just the opposite here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        aurareturn 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 3y ago
        Please don't cross into personal attack and please avoid tit-for-tat spats on HN, regardless of how bad someone's comments are or you feel they are. We're trying for just the opposite here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
M2Ys4U 3y ago
>99% of the people don't care. People do care. They just don't have much, if any, choice.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  They do. Neeva, founded by a former Google exec, built a search engine that had no ads and no tracking. No surveillance capital. They just shut down because no one wanted to pay for it - hence the idea that 99% don't care about surveillance capital enough. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65671468
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    1. Neeva sounds like a hairspray brand. Not a search engine. 2. It's literally just a claim. I have no way of verifying the claim. Them asking me to pay for it makes it more sus. 3. I use searx already. Which I can confirm isn’t “spying” on me because it has nothing to tie me to my IRL identity. 4. It was a Bing reseller. I don’t care for Bing resellers.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      The point is that it had no "surveillance capitalism". It failed because no one cares about that enough - proving that people prefer free with data mining/ads over subscriptions for many internet products.
      - comte7092 3y ago
        >It failed because no one cares about that enough You say that like there aren’t numerous other competitors in the space: DuckDuckGo, Kagi, Brave, searx, qwant, startpage, etc, etc. These services provide both paid and ad based models. Neeva failed because of its own issues. I am in their target market and I had never even heard of them until they shut down. Starting any business is extremely challenging, one failing doesn’t imply there was no market.
mattkevan 3y ago
Maybe businesses without a legitimate business model shouldn’t be in business?
- brap 3y ago
  These businesses earn billions from customers that are gladly paying for their services, because they get value out of it. You call the business "illegitimate", but there are literally millions of paying customers that disagree with you, and they put their money where their mouth is. A lot of money.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Today I learned that most people on HN does not understand basic economics. Or maybe they do but their comments are clouded by their hatred of big tech. Not referring to you brap.
bakuninsbart 3y ago
I'd be happy to pay 250€ a year for an OS that I actually own and control. I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on. I'm actually worth less as a target for advertisement. These products not existing is just a failure of the market and maybe of our education, which is why it is important for governments to step in at that point.
- brap 3y ago
  >I'd be happy to pay 250€ a year for an OS that I actually own and control. That's cool. And do you think many people will also happily pay 250€ every year? Do you think enough people care so make this a profitable business? And if so, why isn't there one yet? If there is, why aren't you a happy paying customer? >I'd be happy to also pay that amount to browse without being spied on. Same question. >These products not existing is just a failure of the market Is it? Or is the market simply responding to (lack of) demand? It seems to me that many people on HN forget that we're just part of a very small bubble, a niche. We're a tiny target segment, we're not very good at paying for things, and frankly we make pretty shitty customers for various of other reasons. Instead of admitting that we're not that valuable to businesses, we project our own desires onto others, and when we don't get what we want because it's not profitable, we expect the government to step in and force someone else pay for it.
- megous 3y ago
  Such OSes do exist. You don't even have to pay.