4 ms·

Not really. One might say that you cannot demand "free services" to provide customer service, but I would not consider Google's services as "free". This is bec

by a1a 13y ago

Not really. One might say that you cannot demand "free services" to provide customer service, but I would not consider Google's services as "free". This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. There are a lot of Google services where customer service is indeed relevant, for example Gmail, Google+, Google docs, etc. For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well.

kevination 13y ago
> This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. That doesn't seem accurate. You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements. Your personal information helps target those ads.
- kanzure 13y ago
  > You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements No, many of us are literally paying. You know, with dollars. For (really tiny amounts of) storage space. And other things.
  - kevination 13y ago
    That makes sense. Paying with personal information was the statement that I was responding to. The personal information is worthless without the exposure to advertisements.
    - a1a 13y ago
      We clearly have different views. I believe that a transaction of value (i.e. a payment) is not limited to money, it does include indirect values as well. I.e. if I send my personal data to a advertising corporation - that is a transaction of an indirect value. The direct value of that transaction is of course when receiving money from the one buying the advertisement which is exposed to me. Yet without my personal information, they could possible not have sold it for as much.
      - kevination 13y ago
        I agree that one can pay for something without exchanging money. What I took issue with was your emphasis on paying with personal information, while not mentioning that the personal information was being used in service of the advertisement exposures. As far as I know, the reason they want my information is to make the actual revenue-generating thing work better. The advertisements would still make Google (far less, but still significant) money without my personal information. My personal information presumably wouldn't generate much significant revenue at all were it not being used in service of advertisements. That's why it seemed odd to me to say that I'm paying with my personal information, and not mention advertising exposures. Perhaps I'm quibbling though! Anyway, I'm starting to feel like a modern jackass[1]; sorry if this wasn't very clear. 1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jackass http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jack...
powermeat 13y ago
> For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well. Or else what? To what benefit? Do they need to step up or would you just prefer if they provided customer service?
- a1a 13y ago
  Oh sorry! English is not my native language, I did not realize "need to step up" was considered such a strong expression. I stand corrected: Not just Google, I would prefer if many other corporations were able to provide customer service as well, please.
kbenson 13y ago
Whether the service is free or not has nothing to do with the amount of support they provide. If they charged $0.01 per year, would that then change any argument in any way? What about $0.01 for life? Google is monetizing the interaction in some way, either directly or indirectly (possibly even as a loss leader), otherwise they would not offer it. That is all that matters. Once we can all get past the "free" concept, it turns into a rather mundane comparisons of price vs features, but price may not entirely consist of currency.
- a1a 13y ago
  I agree. The point of my above statement was that one might argue that it's not reasonable to for example call Linus Torvalds and demand customer service for free.

by a1a 13y ago

kevination 13y ago

> This is because you are paying with your personal information, it's just another currency. That doesn't seem accurate. You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements. Your personal information helps target those ads.

kanzure 13y ago
> You are "paying" by allowing yourself to be exposed to advertisements No, many of us are literally paying. You know, with dollars. For (really tiny amounts of) storage space. And other things.
- kevination 13y ago
  That makes sense. Paying with personal information was the statement that I was responding to. The personal information is worthless without the exposure to advertisements.
  - a1a 13y ago
    We clearly have different views. I believe that a transaction of value (i.e. a payment) is not limited to money, it does include indirect values as well. I.e. if I send my personal data to a advertising corporation - that is a transaction of an indirect value. The direct value of that transaction is of course when receiving money from the one buying the advertisement which is exposed to me. Yet without my personal information, they could possible not have sold it for as much.
    - kevination 13y ago
      I agree that one can pay for something without exchanging money. What I took issue with was your emphasis on paying with personal information, while not mentioning that the personal information was being used in service of the advertisement exposures. As far as I know, the reason they want my information is to make the actual revenue-generating thing work better. The advertisements would still make Google (far less, but still significant) money without my personal information. My personal information presumably wouldn't generate much significant revenue at all were it not being used in service of advertisements. That's why it seemed odd to me to say that I'm paying with my personal information, and not mention advertising exposures. Perhaps I'm quibbling though! Anyway, I'm starting to feel like a modern jackass[1]; sorry if this wasn't very clear. 1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jackass http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern%20jack...

powermeat 13y ago

> For the record, this is not just Google. Facebook, twitter and others need to step up as well. Or else what? To what benefit? Do they need to step up or would you just prefer if they provided customer service?

a1a 13y ago
Oh sorry! English is not my native language, I did not realize "need to step up" was considered such a strong expression. I stand corrected: Not just Google, I would prefer if many other corporations were able to provide customer service as well, please.

kbenson 13y ago

Whether the service is free or not has nothing to do with the amount of support they provide. If they charged $0.01 per year, would that then change any argument in any way? What about $0.01 for life? Google is monetizing the interaction in some way, either directly or indirectly (possibly even as a loss leader), otherwise they would not offer it. That is all that matters. Once we can all get past the "free" concept, it turns into a rather mundane comparisons of price vs features, but price may not entirely consist of currency.

a1a 13y ago
I agree. The point of my above statement was that one might argue that it's not reasonable to for example call Linus Torvalds and demand customer service for free.