[sertbdfgbnfgsd]

The advertisers don't pay for google storing my data. The advertisers pay for ads displayed and ads clicked. How google does that is an implementation detail.

Google does that by storing my data, many kinds of my data. You making the distinction between data that "the user knows and understands" versus data that "is obscure to the user but advertisers care about" is a matter of marketing, in that as the former is easier to charge the user for.

My point is that the argument of "you're not paying for storing data X therefore fuck you" is a silly one, because you're also not paying for storing data Y, and neither are the advertisers.

[da_chicken]

> The advertisers don't pay for google storing my data. The advertisers pay for ads displayed and ads clicked.

That's like saying you don't pay the restaurant for the chef, you pay the restaurant for the food. It's a level of semantics that rises to being simply disingenuous. It's a restaurant, not a grocery.

[sertbdfgbnfgsd]

No, it's not semantics, and it shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.

You can sell ads without targeting. In fact you can even sell ads without users.

Source: I worked years buying and selling online ads.

[da_chicken]

> You can sell ads without targeting.

You can, but that's not really what Google is selling anymore. It's certainly not the only thing Google is selling.

Unless you're making the claim that the data storage that Google uses for their data tracking isn't paid for by the targeted ad service? That if Google suddenly couldn't use that data for targeted advertising anymore that they'd still keep it around, or that none of their other services would raise in price?

[sertbdfgbnfgsd]

>> You can sell ads without targeting.

> You can, but that's not really what Google is selling anymore.

Wrong again. Google's thing is search ads. Those target keywords, not user data. User data is a side-gig for Google, mostly thru youtube, maps, and gmail.