3 ms·

> How much value they extract from it exactly is likely something not even Google knows. But given that it can be exchanged on dark data broker markets in perpe

> How much value they extract from it exactly is likely something not even Google knows. But given that it can be exchanged on dark data broker markets in perpetuity, Companies like Google and Meta don't sell your data, on dark markets or otherwise. They keep it in-house for advertising targeting purposes. If they sold it to other companies it would reduce their competitive advantage. It's not even worth it for them. Google doesn't want to sell your data. They want to keep it internal as much as possible so their ad platform is valuable.

bitmasher9 1y ago
They won’t sell your raw data, but they will use your data to charge a premium for their ads. It’s indirectly “selling your data”.
- FloorEgg 1y ago
  Its monetizing the data. Selling the data (directly or indirectly) is inaccurate.
  - hedora 1y ago
    Countless studies have shown how to extract personally identifiable information from Google’s monetization platform by giving them money. They sell your data by any definition of “sell” that existed before they redefined the term so that it excludes their businesses.
    - FloorEgg 1y ago
      Maybe you're right as I haven't seen the studies you're claiming prove this. I based my comment off my own experience using AdWords around 2013-2016 and then again around 2019-2021.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  Selling something means you deliver it to another party. If they’re not delivering your data to another party, they’re not selling your data. The comment above literally claimed they were selling data through “dark data brokers”. It’s a false claim and I called it out.
imiric 1y ago
Whether they're directly doing business with data brokers or not is not the point. They're indirectly profiting from the profiles they build by selling access to them via their advertising platform. It's just a roundabout way of doing business, as is common in advertising. Besides, even if they're not selling these profiles, they will end up on data broker markets one way or another. Whether their lack of security allows companies to export it, as in Meta's case, or simply by using their tools to gather as much information about people as possible. The reality is that nobody outside of these companies, and likely only people in executive positions, knows how they operate internally. They have an army of PR and legal people to do their bidding. Whatever practices the public thinks these companies are or aren't involved with is mere guesswork, but one thing is certain: they don't maintain their size and power by keeping their hands clean. But then again, I'm probably on the wrong forum for this line of thinking.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > Whether they're directly doing business with data brokers or not is not the point. That was literally the point I responded to. > They're indirectly profiting from the profiles they build by selling access to them via their advertising platform That’s very different than the “selling your data” line that keeps getting repeated. There’s a motte and bailey game that gets played every time this topic comes up. The argument starts with claims they’re selling your data, then when that’s revealed as a false claim the argument pivots to something else with strained arguments that it’s equally bad.

bitmasher9 1y ago

They won’t sell your raw data, but they will use your data to charge a premium for their ads. It’s indirectly “selling your data”.

FloorEgg 1y ago
Its monetizing the data. Selling the data (directly or indirectly) is inaccurate.
- hedora 1y ago
  Countless studies have shown how to extract personally identifiable information from Google’s monetization platform by giving them money. They sell your data by any definition of “sell” that existed before they redefined the term so that it excludes their businesses.
  - FloorEgg 1y ago
    Maybe you're right as I haven't seen the studies you're claiming prove this. I based my comment off my own experience using AdWords around 2013-2016 and then again around 2019-2021.
Aurornis 1y ago
Selling something means you deliver it to another party. If they’re not delivering your data to another party, they’re not selling your data. The comment above literally claimed they were selling data through “dark data brokers”. It’s a false claim and I called it out.

imiric 1y ago

Whether they're directly doing business with data brokers or not is not the point. They're indirectly profiting from the profiles they build by selling access to them via their advertising platform. It's just a roundabout way of doing business, as is common in advertising. Besides, even if they're not selling these profiles, they will end up on data broker markets one way or another. Whether their lack of security allows companies to export it, as in Meta's case, or simply by using their tools to gather as much information about people as possible. The reality is that nobody outside of these companies, and likely only people in executive positions, knows how they operate internally. They have an army of PR and legal people to do their bidding. Whatever practices the public thinks these companies are or aren't involved with is mere guesswork, but one thing is certain: they don't maintain their size and power by keeping their hands clean. But then again, I'm probably on the wrong forum for this line of thinking.

Aurornis 1y ago
> Whether they're directly doing business with data brokers or not is not the point. That was literally the point I responded to. > They're indirectly profiting from the profiles they build by selling access to them via their advertising platform That’s very different than the “selling your data” line that keeps getting repeated. There’s a motte and bailey game that gets played every time this topic comes up. The argument starts with claims they’re selling your data, then when that’s revealed as a false claim the argument pivots to something else with strained arguments that it’s equally bad.