5 ms·
If the service is free, you are the product. I wonder how many “partners” Google or Microsoft have? Their legalese probably doesn’t say it explicitly and proba
by xyst 3y ago
If the service is free, you are the product.
I wonder how many “partners” Google or Microsoft have? Their legalese probably doesn’t say it explicitly and probably use some loop hole through a data broker.
Google -> data broker (1) -> 1000 “partners” or affiliates
- p_l 3y agoAFAIK at least in case of Google, they used to closely guard that data, if only for business advantage. As in, you could only benefit from it if you used Google product, you couldn't get brokerage/raw data. No idea about Microsoft, but I don't know if they have their own ad arm like Google.
- drrlvn 3y agoI guess I’m Wikipedia’s product then.
- afavour 3y agoNot quite, Wikipedia is a paid product. If you don’t pay someone else is covering the cost for you.
- oldkinglog 3y agoThis is quite a misleading comment IMO. You don't "pay" donations, you make them. There is no exchange and no debts are settled. And wikipedia isn't a "product" in the usual sense of a commercial product.
- cbarrick 3y agoGoogle has zero reason to share data with brokers. It is much more valuable to them to prevent competitors from accessing that data.
- MuffinFlavored 3y agoI don't understand why it's such a big deal that "other companies have my data" What data? Where I live? My phone number? My interests (that I typed in online)? What kind of products I like (that I scrolled slowly past/engaged with)? Where does the narrative come that "I as a user deserve to use all of these platforms for free and I don't want them or any of their marketing partners to have 'data' on me" Who cares? Why do people become so obsessed with protecting their 'data'? What makes you so special? They go through great lengths to avoid it. How does it affect your life knowing other companies have 'data' on you? If you want insurance, insurance providers literally need data on you. Same for credit with banks/lenders. Same for renters/landlords, etc. But we draw the line on "big tech" social media?... Why? Where is the negative harm?
- bee_rider 3y agoSpying on people is just generally creepy, I don’t know, but I bet if I was hanging around outside in your bushes with some binoculars, you’d have some entirely reasonable questions for me. It is also bad to contribute to this ecosystem, you and I might be boring people with nothing to hide. But, there exist lots of vulnerable people out there, and we should not provide a market for services that make it easier to infer things about them. Unfortunately it is hard to compete with “free*.” So, these spying companies have gained a dominant position in the market. It is, I think, generally accepted that it is fine to regulate entities with dominant market positions.
- gmd63 3y agoIt should be illegal to call it free when it, when sufficiently described, obviously comes with a cost
- AlexandrB 3y agoIt's all fun and games until your data gets used against you. But by then it's too late. There are many historical examples, but a great contemporary example is states using this data so they can prosecute you if your pregnancy ends[1]. In general private collection of data should be regarded the same as government collection of the same data, since all this data is subject to subpoena. [1] https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-new-front-in-the-battle-for-digital-privacy-post-dobbs https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-new-front-in-the-battle-fo...