“But my data” Have your ever sold your data? Would the value you could ever possibly receive for your data ever equate to the value you get from the free services?
Likely No and No.
Is the free ad supported city newspaper free? Yes it is in fact free, just like FM radio is free, and broadcast television is free, and sidewalks next to billboards are free
Someone creating something appealing and giving it away for free in order to make up for it through ads in front of eyeballs does not in any way mean that the free thing isn’t free
And here we see the ostrich. When faced with the horrors of reality, sticks its head in the sand. It’s simpler in there.
That’s literally google’s business model.
You think Gmail is free bc Google is nice?
Come on…
Which is a bad thing and should stop. Right now!
Ps: it’s also not like you’re paying so little that you could say you’re getting it for…… free
Very weird.
It’s a good deal for the individual, that’s why Gmail is popular.
Trading something of low value for something of moderate value is not what “free” means…
Say the data from me or any of my peers was worth 1/100th of a cent and we give that away… that means I am trading something of minor value for something else…
I don't want to sell my data. I want companies to stop collecting it.
In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone here wishing they could sell their data.
However the value is not nothing, and if you are a company with multiple billion users, that value of data can get pretty big pretty fast
The advertisers paying to get their ads placed in front of those eyes disagree.
And ye, since another comment questions this, data or "eye-time are similar - they can be broken down to the individual.
The advertisers pay some price expecting a certain number of people to see the ad, and even if data about people is sold in bulk (too) there is a price per individual. It's a simple division to see the price they pay per person to view that cinema ad, or for one person's data, even if they always purchase those in bulk.
After all, they get to the bulk price by multiplying how much they are willing to pay for one individual with the expected (or in the case of data packages known) number of individuals.
Also Chrome exists primarily to ensure their ads business remains healthy i.e. they have massively watered down privacy restrictions.
Theres a reason that you have to log into a Google account to use those services, which means agreeing to their rather large TOS.
Buying something doesnt necessarily mean you have to pay money for it. Your time and information is worth something too.
I've never heard of Google doing this. Google sells access to and the attention of their audience. They do not sell personal data.
It literally means exactly that, because you're deriving some real value (money) from 5 minutes of your eyesight. So therefore it has value.
You, the theater owner, are selling the time people are sitting in your theater in view of a large screen to advertisers. That time is literally worth something.
If there were no people in the theater, the advertisers wouldn’t pay for the time.
You just really don’t understand how advertising works.
You’re effectively saying something like “just because people would pay for something, doesn’t mean it has any value”
I have to believe that you’re an extremely skilled troll, because otherwise idk what’s going on in your head.
I would argue that the question of "Is it free?" should not be restricted to monetary payments. If I offer you dinner for an hour of yardwork - are you receiving the food for free? If I would offer you that same dinner in exchange for letting me watch you use your computer for a while, is it free?
I think ads do incur a cost on you: In usability of a service, in your attention span / desensitization and your ability to focus, in the money you would not have spent were it not for ads.
Googles services are free in the sense, that you don't spend cold hard cash on them, but I would still argue, that you pay for them. That 2 Trillion Dollar valuation has to come from somewhere... :(
#2. You can pay? Also is the argument somehow that the free thing isn’t free because the ad in it makes the UX worse?
Also curious to know how many ads exactly do you get while using google workspace? drive? android? maps?
Finally: You can literally use Chrome, Workspace, Drive, Android and Maps without seeing a single ad, without an ad blocker, without EVER using google search, for free.
Those semantics aside:
- Maps has ads in the form of sponsored results all over the map.
- Android is only a decently functional platform with Play services installed, which includes ads. I don't have an Android phone handy but I'm pretty sure there's up-sells included in quite a few places, I just can't name any right now.
- Chrome is a browser you cannot use for its primary purpose without seeing ads.
- Workspace is a directly paid-for product.
Google is an ad company. Essentially all of its products are supported by advertising, and it's slightly odd to suggest they are not.
I would like private businesses to offer transactional costs. I do not want businesses leveraging diffuse costs; I'd prefer that only my governments use diffuse costs and that private businesses have limited ability to use diffuse costs. At least with government I get a vote.
My data has been sold, yes. By me, no, because I don't have the means. But by others and especially by nefarious actors, absolutely.
So indeed, it's not free. Just because data isn't liquid at the individual level doesn't mean it has no value.