6 ms·

How many of those consumers expect to keep using Google services for free?

by fxbl0i 7y ago

jonfw 7y ago
Both senses of the word free work beautifully together. Free as in beer and free as in speech. We shouldn't put up with violations of our personal liberty for no-cost software. Tech is such a young industry- we still have time to shape it into a place that can be free in both senses of the word. Just because shareholders demand it doesn't mean that consumers should accept immorality.
- geddy 7y ago
  >We shouldn't put up with violations of our personal liberty for no-cost software This is exactly what we've been torpedoing towards since Google Docs came out and people didn't have to pay for Acrobat Reader to see PDFs. Unfortunately from free services where the user is the product, and free apps with in-app purchases on mobile, the general public has been conditioned to never spend a dime, privacy be damned. We did it to ourselves.
  - fixermark 7y ago
    Not only did we do it to ourselves, we're mostly enjoying and benefitting from it. The alternative (where all software is pay-to-play) actually shuts out the vast bulk of the world's population that doesn't have chips to play yet.
    - max76 7y ago
      A lot of software, like Libre Office, neither track users, nor sells advertising space, nor charges users. For important infrastructure pieces, like how businesses communicate with each other, we should strive for this level of privacy and availability.
      - fixermark 7y ago
        Does Libre Office allow for simultaneous collaborative editing by multiple users and seamless passing of current version by passing a URL around? Does it require correct set up and maintenance of a Linux installation (which has gotten a lot simpler in the past 20-odd-years, but still requires more than its fair share of technical expertise), or can it be used by anyone with a web browser, regardless of operating system or installed software configuration (save, of course, the web browser)? If not, it's definitely an option but I'd generally anticipate it'll lose out in userbase to the alternative that has those features.
        jonfw 7y ago
        I think most of us can agree that sometimes Google services are extremely practical. I just don't think that the practicality is an argument towards the morality of their business. I wouldn't make this a morality based argument if we just had transparency. If they were perfectly transparent, their business model would be fine (in terms of morality at least). But I believe, personally, that they have the responsibility to better inform consumers exactly what data they're collecting and exactly where it's going. If you are a well educated consumer who decides that they are comfortable with the level of surveillance in exchange for that product, than by all means. I just wish it wasn't impossible to be a well educated consumer in this field.
        fixermark 7y ago
        Privacy isn't a morality question for most users. If it were, we would expect to see more people up in arms about demographic surveys instead of willfully participating in them.
        jonfw 7y ago
        privacy isn't the morality question, being misleading about your privacy is the morality question. Google is collecting surveillance data on it's consumers, that the majority of it's consumers don't even know is being collected. At what point does it become Google's responsibility to make a reasonable effort to inform people about their surveillance practices? I'd say if polling shows that the majority of your consumers aren't aware of your surveillance practices, you aren't being honest.
    - jonfw 7y ago
      Open source solves both of these problems. The way I see it, software that costs money is a problem, and software that compromises your freedom is a problem. Sure Google can solve one of those problems, but we also shouldn't pat ourselves on the back unless we solve both problems.
      - 43920 7y ago
        I've seen this attitude a lot, and I don't really understand it. Software takes a ton of work to produce, and in many cases a significant degree of skill as well, and I don't really see an issue with wanting to be compensated for it. If charging money is bad, and advertising is bad, what are you supposed to do? Given that you're posting here, I'm assuming that you likely get paid to write software as well - do you think it's reasonable for everyone to expect that you produce software for free?
        jonfw 7y ago
        You're right, it's certainly more nuanced than 'money = bad' and 'advertising = bad'. I still think that in the context of this discussion, open source does solve both the privacy problem and the accessibility problem. But you're right that there are problems, namely incentive, that open source does not solve. Open source is not the only solution to those problems, and sometimes solving those problems (privacy and accessibility) just isn't practical. In those cases, I would just wish for more transparency.
  - lotu 7y ago
    Nitpick, can we say "the user's attention is the product" instead of "the user is the product". It is less descriptive and hyperbolic which reduces the speaker's credibility. It also minimizes the suffering of people that have (and unfortunately still are) sold as slaves (literal human products).
    - jonfw 7y ago
      The user's attention isn't the sole product though. Personal information about the user is also a huge part of the product. Saying it's just your attention doesn't accurately convey concerns about their data collection.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    Android is not free, but it tries to collect as much data as possible, for example, WiFi access point identifiers tied to GPS location. Paying for a product doesn't stop you from being a product at the same time. Because this way the corporation would earn more that just from selling a product.
max76 7y ago
DDG Search is a free competitor to Google Search that doesn't track. It's not that Google either tracks their users or charges their users. In addition, there is a whole range of tracking activities and we should have open and informed discussions about if some of them should become illegal, or if companies require simpler disclosures about their privacy policy.
- trpc 7y ago
  >DDG Search is a free competitor to Google Search that doesn't track prove it please
  - graeme 7y ago
    This isn’t proof, but wouldn’t we hear some employee or partner leaks if it did? It’s hard to keep a really big secret while publicly proclaiming the opposite. Exception would perhaps be a govt enforced one, with jail threats for those who leaked.
  - max76 7y ago
    "We don't collect or share personal information. That's our privacy policy in a nutshell." https://duckduckgo.com/privacy https://duckduckgo.com/privacy I can't prove that DDG doesn't track users, but their entire brand is based on very hardline privacy policy. If they are secretly tracking, and they are caught, their brand value will be reduced to near zero.
    - fxbl0i 7y ago
      I doubt it. Firefox has had a few privacy scandals of their own, but as long as they are marginally better than Google, they'll keep having a fervent user base.
  - wolco 7y ago
    They record searches. They do not offer personalized ads that track users interest and sell ads. Depending on what you are hiding. If you want to hide that anyone searched for a term, no. If you want to hide that you searched for a term, yes.
wolco 7y ago
Most would. There have been many search engines never a paid one. Many free email providers existed before and after gmail.
nukeop 7y ago
This doesn't matter, even if it were paid they'd still spy on you, because they can. The list of paid services that still do a ton of spying is neverending (Netflix, Uber, Spotify, I could list them all day).
JohnFen 7y ago
I would be absolutely thrilled if, in exchange for not using Google services at all, Google would stop spying on me. That's not an option, though.
- sandov 7y ago
  In which ways would they keep spying on you? If you install privacy badger, block their IP addresses on your hosts file, don't use an Android phone(at least not a stock ROM), don't visit Google sites, etc. I don't think they would be able to gather much info about you.
  - Viliam1234 7y ago
    For example, they would still have all e-mails sent from/to people using Gmail. Unless you have a strict policy of "stop using Gmail, or I will stop corresponding with you electronically", Google is going to read large parts of your private correspondence anyway.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    Google also buys real-world credit and debit card usage and correlates that with the other information they gather, for example. I defend myself against Google as much as I can using the methods you cite (among others), but the reality is that it's impossible to avoid their spying entirely.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Add: Don’t use credit cards (they buy the transaction data) Don’t let your contacts with Gmail addresses email you Don’t let your contacts with android or ios setup to sync contacts add you as a contact
    - sandov 7y ago
      Good points. I didn't know about the credit cards part. I stand corrected.
  - codedokode 7y ago
tlynchpin 7y ago
How many of those consumers expect to keep watching soap operas for free?
syrrim 7y ago
There are search engines that offer search without collecting user data. Advertising provides enough revenue to make this sustainable. I doubt that google will switch to this model of it's own volition of course.
Dylan16807 7y ago
Would google actually lose money on most of these services if they had to use non-tracking ads?
codedokode 7y ago
Free or paid doesn't mean anything. You buy Windows 10 or you buy an Android phone - and you get under surveillance. Actually, using a "free" linux distribution or a "free" pirated Windows might give you higher chance to stay under radar.

How many of those consumers expect to keep using Google services for free?

by fxbl0i 7y ago

How many of those consumers expect to keep using Google services for free?

Both senses of the word free work beautifully together. Free as in beer and free as in speech. We shouldn't put up with violations of our personal liberty for no-cost software. Tech is such a young industry- we still have time to shape it into a place that can be free in both senses of the word. Just because shareholders demand it doesn't mean that consumers should accept immorality.

geddy 7y ago
>We shouldn't put up with violations of our personal liberty for no-cost software This is exactly what we've been torpedoing towards since Google Docs came out and people didn't have to pay for Acrobat Reader to see PDFs. Unfortunately from free services where the user is the product, and free apps with in-app purchases on mobile, the general public has been conditioned to never spend a dime, privacy be damned. We did it to ourselves.
- fixermark 7y ago
  Not only did we do it to ourselves, we're mostly enjoying and benefitting from it. The alternative (where all software is pay-to-play) actually shuts out the vast bulk of the world's population that doesn't have chips to play yet.
  - max76 7y ago
    A lot of software, like Libre Office, neither track users, nor sells advertising space, nor charges users. For important infrastructure pieces, like how businesses communicate with each other, we should strive for this level of privacy and availability.
    - fixermark 7y ago
      Does Libre Office allow for simultaneous collaborative editing by multiple users and seamless passing of current version by passing a URL around? Does it require correct set up and maintenance of a Linux installation (which has gotten a lot simpler in the past 20-odd-years, but still requires more than its fair share of technical expertise), or can it be used by anyone with a web browser, regardless of operating system or installed software configuration (save, of course, the web browser)? If not, it's definitely an option but I'd generally anticipate it'll lose out in userbase to the alternative that has those features.
      - jonfw 7y ago
        I think most of us can agree that sometimes Google services are extremely practical. I just don't think that the practicality is an argument towards the morality of their business. I wouldn't make this a morality based argument if we just had transparency. If they were perfectly transparent, their business model would be fine (in terms of morality at least). But I believe, personally, that they have the responsibility to better inform consumers exactly what data they're collecting and exactly where it's going. If you are a well educated consumer who decides that they are comfortable with the level of surveillance in exchange for that product, than by all means. I just wish it wasn't impossible to be a well educated consumer in this field.
        fixermark 7y ago
        Privacy isn't a morality question for most users. If it were, we would expect to see more people up in arms about demographic surveys instead of willfully participating in them.
        jonfw 7y ago
        privacy isn't the morality question, being misleading about your privacy is the morality question. Google is collecting surveillance data on it's consumers, that the majority of it's consumers don't even know is being collected. At what point does it become Google's responsibility to make a reasonable effort to inform people about their surveillance practices? I'd say if polling shows that the majority of your consumers aren't aware of your surveillance practices, you aren't being honest.
  - jonfw 7y ago
    Open source solves both of these problems. The way I see it, software that costs money is a problem, and software that compromises your freedom is a problem. Sure Google can solve one of those problems, but we also shouldn't pat ourselves on the back unless we solve both problems.
    - 43920 7y ago
      I've seen this attitude a lot, and I don't really understand it. Software takes a ton of work to produce, and in many cases a significant degree of skill as well, and I don't really see an issue with wanting to be compensated for it. If charging money is bad, and advertising is bad, what are you supposed to do? Given that you're posting here, I'm assuming that you likely get paid to write software as well - do you think it's reasonable for everyone to expect that you produce software for free?
      - jonfw 7y ago
        You're right, it's certainly more nuanced than 'money = bad' and 'advertising = bad'. I still think that in the context of this discussion, open source does solve both the privacy problem and the accessibility problem. But you're right that there are problems, namely incentive, that open source does not solve. Open source is not the only solution to those problems, and sometimes solving those problems (privacy and accessibility) just isn't practical. In those cases, I would just wish for more transparency.
- lotu 7y ago
  Nitpick, can we say "the user's attention is the product" instead of "the user is the product". It is less descriptive and hyperbolic which reduces the speaker's credibility. It also minimizes the suffering of people that have (and unfortunately still are) sold as slaves (literal human products).
  - jonfw 7y ago
    The user's attention isn't the sole product though. Personal information about the user is also a huge part of the product. Saying it's just your attention doesn't accurately convey concerns about their data collection.
- codedokode 7y ago
  Android is not free, but it tries to collect as much data as possible, for example, WiFi access point identifiers tied to GPS location. Paying for a product doesn't stop you from being a product at the same time. Because this way the corporation would earn more that just from selling a product.

max76 7y ago

DDG Search is a free competitor to Google Search that doesn't track. It's not that Google either tracks their users or charges their users. In addition, there is a whole range of tracking activities and we should have open and informed discussions about if some of them should become illegal, or if companies require simpler disclosures about their privacy policy.

trpc 7y ago
>DDG Search is a free competitor to Google Search that doesn't track prove it please
- graeme 7y ago
  This isn’t proof, but wouldn’t we hear some employee or partner leaks if it did? It’s hard to keep a really big secret while publicly proclaiming the opposite. Exception would perhaps be a govt enforced one, with jail threats for those who leaked.
- max76 7y ago
  "We don't collect or share personal information. That's our privacy policy in a nutshell." https://duckduckgo.com/privacy https://duckduckgo.com/privacy I can't prove that DDG doesn't track users, but their entire brand is based on very hardline privacy policy. If they are secretly tracking, and they are caught, their brand value will be reduced to near zero.
  - fxbl0i 7y ago
    I doubt it. Firefox has had a few privacy scandals of their own, but as long as they are marginally better than Google, they'll keep having a fervent user base.
- wolco 7y ago
  They record searches. They do not offer personalized ads that track users interest and sell ads. Depending on what you are hiding. If you want to hide that anyone searched for a term, no. If you want to hide that you searched for a term, yes.

wolco 7y ago

Most would. There have been many search engines never a paid one. Many free email providers existed before and after gmail.

nukeop 7y ago

This doesn't matter, even if it were paid they'd still spy on you, because they can. The list of paid services that still do a ton of spying is neverending (Netflix, Uber, Spotify, I could list them all day).

JohnFen 7y ago

I would be absolutely thrilled if, in exchange for not using Google services at all, Google would stop spying on me. That's not an option, though.

sandov 7y ago
In which ways would they keep spying on you? If you install privacy badger, block their IP addresses on your hosts file, don't use an Android phone(at least not a stock ROM), don't visit Google sites, etc. I don't think they would be able to gather much info about you.
- Viliam1234 7y ago
  For example, they would still have all e-mails sent from/to people using Gmail. Unless you have a strict policy of "stop using Gmail, or I will stop corresponding with you electronically", Google is going to read large parts of your private correspondence anyway.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  Google also buys real-world credit and debit card usage and correlates that with the other information they gather, for example. I defend myself against Google as much as I can using the methods you cite (among others), but the reality is that it's impossible to avoid their spying entirely.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Add: Don’t use credit cards (they buy the transaction data) Don’t let your contacts with Gmail addresses email you Don’t let your contacts with android or ios setup to sync contacts add you as a contact
  - sandov 7y ago
    Good points. I didn't know about the credit cards part. I stand corrected.
- codedokode 7y ago

tlynchpin 7y ago

How many of those consumers expect to keep watching soap operas for free?

syrrim 7y ago

There are search engines that offer search without collecting user data. Advertising provides enough revenue to make this sustainable. I doubt that google will switch to this model of it's own volition of course.

Dylan16807 7y ago

Would google actually lose money on most of these services if they had to use non-tracking ads?

codedokode 7y ago

Free or paid doesn't mean anything. You buy Windows 10 or you buy an Android phone - and you get under surveillance. Actually, using a "free" linux distribution or a "free" pirated Windows might give you higher chance to stay under radar.