[apple_innocent]

Oil companies pay a living wage. At least they used to, before "Big Tech".

People used to care about environmmental degradation. It used to be a headline issue in the 1970s.

It is depressing to think of how much energy is required to keep Google alive. That is no small amount of oil.

Google's mission is to keep online advertising alive. Without it, they cannot sustain the high life they are living. They serve only advertisers. To do this, they need massive amouts of data, more than any single media publication could collect. People using Google search and Android are just ad targets. At least the media employs journalists, and they have a purpose to inform. Google's purpose is just to collect personal data and serve advertisers, including political campaigns.

[unlaxedneurotic]

Even media can be described in a similar fashion, a lot of them promote content that generates the most clicks - which is often biased and polarising. There are sides to every discussion. I am no fan of google's data collection policies, but at the same time cannot refute the value they have created as a company.

[apple_innocent]

I was refering to Google's reliance on online advertising. The media unlike Google does have something to sell: journalism. The media relies in part on advertising, but not greater than 90%, as Google does. I never mentioned the concept of value or the media's dirty tactics. I am refering to operating as a middleman and having a nearly 100% dependence on advertising. As far as I know, those are facts.

[zelon88]

I don't disagree with your last paragraph. I don't like the Google business model either. But it works, and in capitalism that's all that matters. And they've climbed to the top so why should it be easy to unseat them?

Google and Facebook did what any capitalist organization should do. Grow unapologetically, pivot into new areas, absorb competition, and take over the world.

In one sense I wish it weren't Google or Facebook that this happened to but on the other hand I'm glad it was progressive companies who treat their employees right instead of the status quo McDonald's and Wal Mart and holding firms.

You know they are the ones complaining that tech is taking over. Isn't it ironic that last years world leaders are upset about being booted from the table by executives who don't even believe in capitalism. If that's not an enormous "we're better at this than you" then I don't know what is.

I don't like FB or Google's revenue streams... but that doesn't matter in capitalism. They have a stable business model and they deserve to see where it goes.

[apple_innocent]

You say you disagree with the last paragrah but you did not offer any argument against any of the assertions in the last paragraph. The asserions were factual, having to do with the need for advertisers. Unless you can claim Google does not need advertisers and offer arguments in support, then you have not disagreed with the last paragraph. Instead you changed the subject. Something about capitalism and Wal Mart. Has nothing to do with whether or not Google relies on advertising to survive.