Google makes the majority of its revenue by knowing things about their users and then allowing them to be targeted with ads.
Google's plans being usually "obviously good" is a highly subjective opinion.
Google's plans being usually "obviously good" is a highly subjective opinion.
That doesn't mean that AMP is a great idea.
I think we have to be be pretty naive to believe this is event remotely true.
> And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
I can only speak from personal experience. But I would not agree.
Collection of data needs to be covered in a privacy document. You must argue why you're collecting it. There has to be a retention plan, such that data is purged when the user account is deleted, and/or the data expires over time.
You can of course get exemptions, IF there is a valid business reason. But all of this needs to be reviewed and approved by privacy people.
If you want to get things done. The paperwork is a strong incentive to avoid keeping data you don't need.
Note. privacy reviews cover more than I mentioned here. This was just a highlight.
For an ad revenue driven business, that’s a pretty big exception.
Ad targeting / re-targeting benefits from a richer picture of the user’s personal life choices. Maybe only a couple percentage points, but every % of a billion adds up.
The paperwork is a modest incentive to avoid keeping data Google doesn't need. The problem is that what people need is not necessarily the same as what Google's surveillance and manipulation profit machine needs.
I don't need Google to keep a hyper-detailed record of every site I visit, but Google's business model means that they "need" to do it. So they do.
>> And Google's employees have a large incentive to not see any issues with collecting all the personal information that exists.
You see, Googlers are incentivized not to see the ethical catastrophe that is collecting the data they "need" to collect in order to implement and enhance Google's surveillance and manipulation profit machine.
Sure, if some data are irrelevant to the surveillance and manipulation profit machine, there is a modest incentive not to collect those data. The problem is that Google "needs" a great deal of highly personal, sensitive data whose aggregation poses societal risks that can hardly be overstated. But, since Google--and therefore, Googlers' salaries, bonuses, and RSU gains--"needs" those data, Googlers are incentivized to rationalize its collection, aggregation, and exploitation.