3 ms·

The sheer resistance to paying for YouTube Premium is proving the need for ads.

hirvi74 1y ago
YouTube has an estimated worth, if it were a stand-alone company, of $475 billion to $550 billion. I'm sure they'll survive off just fine continuing to sell my personal information just like that always have.
- jfoster 1y ago
  Yes, it's a perfectly suitable model. I don't have a problem with it. (but I do use YouTube frequently enough that I decided to pay for premium)
- Mindwipe 1y ago
  Google do not, and literally never have "sold your personal information." They deliver targeted advertising due to the information they have. That's the model. They make literally zero dollars a year selling personal information.
  - madeforhnyo 1y ago
    Source? Google is literally an online ad monopoly, and being sued for it. They did track and continue tracking users, and they sell data though their SSP, DSP, ad networks, ad exchanges they own.
    - Mindwipe 1y ago
      That is not "selling data". That is exactly what I said. They sell targeted advertising.
    - AlienRobot 1y ago
      The data is their golden goose. They only sell the eggs.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      Find the webpage where you can buy googles user data. Not where you can buy ad slots, but where you can buy the raw tracking data like data brokers sell. I'll wait.
      - clippyplz 1y ago
        Try looking for something like "cia ads track" in your favorite search engine. The data comes with the ads, it's not a secret.
      - madeforhnyo 1y ago
        Wait no further: https://ads.google.com/intl/en/home/tools/insights-finder/ https://ads.google.com/intl/en/home/tools/insights-finder/
        jfoster 1y ago
        Heavily aggregated data. Nothing even close to personally identifying.
        madeforhnyo 1y ago
        Still, it is _personal_ data collected and sold by Google, which was the point raised by gp comment. As for it being personally identifying, the aggregation/pseudonymization/anonymization process doesn't even prevent precise identification [0]. I'd say it's pretty close. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3

YouTube has an estimated worth, if it were a stand-alone company, of $475 billion to $550 billion. I'm sure they'll survive off just fine continuing to sell my personal information just like that always have.

jfoster 1y ago
Yes, it's a perfectly suitable model. I don't have a problem with it. (but I do use YouTube frequently enough that I decided to pay for premium)
Mindwipe 1y ago
Google do not, and literally never have "sold your personal information." They deliver targeted advertising due to the information they have. That's the model. They make literally zero dollars a year selling personal information.
- madeforhnyo 1y ago
  Source? Google is literally an online ad monopoly, and being sued for it. They did track and continue tracking users, and they sell data though their SSP, DSP, ad networks, ad exchanges they own.
  - Mindwipe 1y ago
    That is not "selling data". That is exactly what I said. They sell targeted advertising.
  - AlienRobot 1y ago
    The data is their golden goose. They only sell the eggs.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Find the webpage where you can buy googles user data. Not where you can buy ad slots, but where you can buy the raw tracking data like data brokers sell. I'll wait.
    - clippyplz 1y ago
      Try looking for something like "cia ads track" in your favorite search engine. The data comes with the ads, it's not a secret.
    - madeforhnyo 1y ago
      Wait no further: https://ads.google.com/intl/en/home/tools/insights-finder/ https://ads.google.com/intl/en/home/tools/insights-finder/
      - jfoster 1y ago
        Heavily aggregated data. Nothing even close to personally identifying.
        madeforhnyo 1y ago
        Still, it is _personal_ data collected and sold by Google, which was the point raised by gp comment. As for it being personally identifying, the aggregation/pseudonymization/anonymization process doesn't even prevent precise identification [0]. I'd say it's pretty close. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3