5 ms·

Have consumers ever been offered the ability to pay Google to opt out of advertisements and to opt into privacy?

by odyssey7 10mo ago

tensor 10mo ago
Somewhat. You can pay for workspace to keep your email private and ad free.
- dizhn 10mo ago
  Guarded by a "privacy policy". This is Google. How come this "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" crowd doesn't get that it doesn't matter if you're paying or not, you're always the product?
  - tonyhart7 10mo ago
    I don't like this argument since this is can be applied to everything and You expect people to roll out their own service for everything since everything is a product in some form or another its okay to depends on some product because they are just good, for example people free to use Office alternative which is free btw but people literally dont choose that because MS Office is just better all of this deep talk discussion is irrelevant since User want an working product that they expect them to its just that
  - beambot 10mo ago
    Id be shocked if the freemium privacy policy & obligations for, say, Gmail is the same as the corporate privacy policy under GSuite/Workspace... With the latter, there's a direct contractual relationship since you're paying Google for services
  - tensor 10mo ago
    Because we're not idiots and we read the "privacy policy"? And shock, it's different for their enterprise products? What, do you think all corporations using google are just stupid and giving up all their confidential data?
earthnail 10mo ago
It’s the same in all consumer marketplaces. Free or freemium has won. It‘s not Google specific.
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  The vast majority of peope put very little value on their time and attention and sense of aesthetics (even if they might say otherwise). It's the only explanation for why advertising is as pervasive as it is.
woobar 10mo ago
Facebook offered paid subscription for ad-free experience in Europe.[1] First, europeans complained it is too expensive. After a price cut, they EC still wanted a free version with less personalization.[2] If google offers something similar, I am pretty sure Europeans will find something else to complain about. [1] https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/ https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-... [2] https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-will-let-facebook-and-instagram-users-in-the-eu-share-less-data-183535897.html https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-will-let-facebook...
- LtWorf 10mo ago
  ad-free and "we won't sell your data" are two different things.
Hnrobert42 10mo ago
Meta was recently fined 200M€ for offering that choice. Seems unfortunate, but maybe I misunderstood. https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/03/meta_ec_dma_sulk/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/03/meta_ec_dma_sulk/
- buran77 10mo ago
  The law defines what companies can or cannot do around privacy. So Meta can't go around telling users to pay to get the privacy the law affords them anyway or conversely, if users don't pay they don't get the privacy. The root of the issue is probably the "freely given consent" that the law defines. If Meta charges users unless they consent to something, then the consent isn't freely given.
  - zelphirkalt 10mo ago
    I think the issue is not actually how freely given consent is defined, but that these tech giants want to not only offer a useful service, but they also want to be allowed to do whatever they want with user data accumulated through usage of their otherwise useful service. For providing their service, they don't have to use data in the ways that they want to use it. If they were running an honest business, they would be charging the user for using their useful services, not trying to make dime with user data without consent, manufactured "consent", or extorted "consent". They wriggle and wriggle, instead of running an honest business, where people buying access to their platforms would actually reflect the usefulness and real value of people being willing to pay for a service. That would be a very transparent number, and that cannot be made look more than it is to shareholders though. I think if they did this, then their whole value would collapse massively back down to sane levels. Now they have blown this whole ads and attention machinery waaay out of proportion and will do anything to keep it pumped up. Heck, they want to pump it up even more, because we all know iiiinfinite growth! They would not be satisfied, if their business spanned the whole solar system.
- ruszki 10mo ago
  No, the ruling said that the free version shouldn’t gather/use as much data as now. The problem is with the free part, not that you can pay for the ad free version. If the free part is not that invasive, it’s completely fine to keep the pay-or-use-your-data model.
Workaccount2 10mo ago
About a decade ago google trialed a program where you could pay monthly to "buy out" ad spaces. So you wouldn't get served ads, or you would get served fewer ads, and the money would be deducted from what you allotted per month. Of course "What kind of dumbass would pay to not see ads when uBlock Origin is free? lololol" It didn't ever get traction or last very long before being canned. This is the mentality that money-compensation-business-plan tech companies would have to face; "What kind of dumbass would pay for your product?"
- martin-t 10mo ago
  Because it's extortion just like paying the mafia for "protection" from themselves. See, ads are not a pro-social service. Their fundamental goal is not to inform and facilitate mutually beneficial exchange of goods/services. Their goal is to allow companies who spend ad-money to gain an advantage over competitors who don't, regardless of quality of the product. Ads are a fundamentally anti-competitive practice.
  - tonyhart7 10mo ago
    while I agree that Ads is sucks as a whole but how can you generate revenue from free service ????? I mean its not like paid service that dont have ads and giving privacy is non existent either, we have proton mail for example
    - martin-t 10mo ago
      You can't. So don't advertise it as free. It's just lying, simple as that. People either pay with their data, their attention or their money. Companies should be required to be transparent about how much revenue each of these sources generates.
      - tonyhart7 10mo ago
        "You can't. So don't advertise it as free. It's just lying" its free as you paid zero dollar "People either pay with their data, their attention or their money." for some people money is more important than their data, and its vice versa with wealthy customer I agree that in the future maybe we can control how much data/money we can paid for the service but that just not possible in current time

Have consumers ever been offered the ability to pay Google to opt out of advertisements and to opt into privacy?

tensor 10mo ago

Somewhat. You can pay for workspace to keep your email private and ad free.

dizhn 10mo ago
Guarded by a "privacy policy". This is Google. How come this "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" crowd doesn't get that it doesn't matter if you're paying or not, you're always the product?
- tonyhart7 10mo ago
  I don't like this argument since this is can be applied to everything and You expect people to roll out their own service for everything since everything is a product in some form or another its okay to depends on some product because they are just good, for example people free to use Office alternative which is free btw but people literally dont choose that because MS Office is just better all of this deep talk discussion is irrelevant since User want an working product that they expect them to its just that
- beambot 10mo ago
  Id be shocked if the freemium privacy policy & obligations for, say, Gmail is the same as the corporate privacy policy under GSuite/Workspace... With the latter, there's a direct contractual relationship since you're paying Google for services
- tensor 10mo ago
  Because we're not idiots and we read the "privacy policy"? And shock, it's different for their enterprise products? What, do you think all corporations using google are just stupid and giving up all their confidential data?

earthnail 10mo ago

It’s the same in all consumer marketplaces. Free or freemium has won. It‘s not Google specific.

SoftTalker 10mo ago
The vast majority of peope put very little value on their time and attention and sense of aesthetics (even if they might say otherwise). It's the only explanation for why advertising is as pervasive as it is.

woobar 10mo ago

Facebook offered paid subscription for ad-free experience in Europe.[1] First, europeans complained it is too expensive. After a price cut, they EC still wanted a free version with less personalization.[2] If google offers something similar, I am pretty sure Europeans will find something else to complain about. [1] https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-offer-subscription-for-no-ads-in-europe/ https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/facebook-and-instagram-to-... [2] https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-will-let-facebook-and-instagram-users-in-the-eu-share-less-data-183535897.html https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-will-let-facebook...

LtWorf 10mo ago
ad-free and "we won't sell your data" are two different things.

Hnrobert42 10mo ago

Meta was recently fined 200M€ for offering that choice. Seems unfortunate, but maybe I misunderstood. https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/03/meta_ec_dma_sulk/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/03/meta_ec_dma_sulk/

buran77 10mo ago
The law defines what companies can or cannot do around privacy. So Meta can't go around telling users to pay to get the privacy the law affords them anyway or conversely, if users don't pay they don't get the privacy. The root of the issue is probably the "freely given consent" that the law defines. If Meta charges users unless they consent to something, then the consent isn't freely given.
- zelphirkalt 10mo ago
  I think the issue is not actually how freely given consent is defined, but that these tech giants want to not only offer a useful service, but they also want to be allowed to do whatever they want with user data accumulated through usage of their otherwise useful service. For providing their service, they don't have to use data in the ways that they want to use it. If they were running an honest business, they would be charging the user for using their useful services, not trying to make dime with user data without consent, manufactured "consent", or extorted "consent". They wriggle and wriggle, instead of running an honest business, where people buying access to their platforms would actually reflect the usefulness and real value of people being willing to pay for a service. That would be a very transparent number, and that cannot be made look more than it is to shareholders though. I think if they did this, then their whole value would collapse massively back down to sane levels. Now they have blown this whole ads and attention machinery waaay out of proportion and will do anything to keep it pumped up. Heck, they want to pump it up even more, because we all know iiiinfinite growth! They would not be satisfied, if their business spanned the whole solar system.
ruszki 10mo ago
No, the ruling said that the free version shouldn’t gather/use as much data as now. The problem is with the free part, not that you can pay for the ad free version. If the free part is not that invasive, it’s completely fine to keep the pay-or-use-your-data model.

Workaccount2 10mo ago

About a decade ago google trialed a program where you could pay monthly to "buy out" ad spaces. So you wouldn't get served ads, or you would get served fewer ads, and the money would be deducted from what you allotted per month. Of course "What kind of dumbass would pay to not see ads when uBlock Origin is free? lololol" It didn't ever get traction or last very long before being canned. This is the mentality that money-compensation-business-plan tech companies would have to face; "What kind of dumbass would pay for your product?"

martin-t 10mo ago
Because it's extortion just like paying the mafia for "protection" from themselves. See, ads are not a pro-social service. Their fundamental goal is not to inform and facilitate mutually beneficial exchange of goods/services. Their goal is to allow companies who spend ad-money to gain an advantage over competitors who don't, regardless of quality of the product. Ads are a fundamentally anti-competitive practice.
- tonyhart7 10mo ago
  while I agree that Ads is sucks as a whole but how can you generate revenue from free service ????? I mean its not like paid service that dont have ads and giving privacy is non existent either, we have proton mail for example
  - martin-t 10mo ago
    You can't. So don't advertise it as free. It's just lying, simple as that. People either pay with their data, their attention or their money. Companies should be required to be transparent about how much revenue each of these sources generates.
    - tonyhart7 10mo ago
      "You can't. So don't advertise it as free. It's just lying" its free as you paid zero dollar "People either pay with their data, their attention or their money." for some people money is more important than their data, and its vice versa with wealthy customer I agree that in the future maybe we can control how much data/money we can paid for the service but that just not possible in current time