685
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
685 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60116 readers
1901 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not that I disagree, but this is a shit take IMHO. It's always been the case that ads paid for "free" services, but the scale and invasiveness of the ads and data collection has clearly accelerated beyond a reasonable level. They waited until they captured a large enough user base and crowded out enough of their competition before gouging their users for ad revenue. They have the size and reach of a small(or medium-sized, even) nation, the data they are able to collect is a wet dream for any three letter agency.
Just because ads are what make the business model feasible doesn't mean they get a free pass to abuse their market position carte blanche. They should be cut down to size, and not just by user migration.
Reasonable to whom? You? Google? The legal system? Some dude living in a bunker in South Dakota? Which person or entity should google consult with before making a decision on what level is "reasonable"?
Making the decision to fund a vast majority of the internet with ads was a pretty big mistake in hindsight, though I couldn't say which way would have been better.
We don't disagree on the basics; I just don't blame a company for acting in the company's best financial interests. That's kind of the way they work-- arguably the CEO of a public company is bound by law to do so. I blame the representatives in the (US) government for failing to protect my interests and privacy. I frequently see news articles about consumer protections in Europe and feel jealous that we don't have the same level here.
I think that thinking is part of the problem. Why don't people take responsibility for their lives and stop using abusive services? Almost everyone knows Google spies and abuses people's info, but they are too lazy to change or don't care cuz they like free shit. So I say let them stay and get abused. Those who care move on - like we did here from another abuser in Reddit.
Like you did here? In what way?
well like I said, I found Reddit abusive in their spying, censorship and money grabs, so I dropped them and came here. The people who care will drop Google, the rest will remain as victims. Can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved. I think many haven't realized that is us the users who give these big corps all their power.
How do you know your instance doesn't spy, censor, or.. well, I guess you're correct on the money grabs part, haha.
If they were concerned, they could spin up their own instance or join one that's run by someone they trust.
The same could not be said for reddit.
Why are you even here?
I assume everyone is spying but i use a vpn so I don't care. Censorship here is difficult for a server as people can very easily change to another one, and money grabs are pretty hard here 😉 Nothing is perfect, but I like this place a lot more than reddit. I don't use anything Google and am enjoying that also.
legally yes they've been fined by numerous governments for excessive privacy violations
That's fair but presumably, since they're not racking up fines cumulatively, that they are now in accordance with the law... so are you saying that the current level is "reasonable"? Am I misunderstanding you point?
I don't blame Google for perusing their capitalistic interests.
I blame a neoliberal system that encourages it, and I blame capitalist apologists that get in the way of meaningful change.
If a (at this time fictional, really powerful, general purpose) AI exists to enshure as many stamps are delivered to its door as possable (a maximizer), it needs to make inert anything that would restrain it from that goal in any capacity. Law is subverted because with laws, you cant maximize stamps by stealing the carbon from others (likely killing them) to grow trees to stuff and let rot in a random house.
Maximizers are indiffrent to human life.