[ajross]

> we need a social chnage to make serving someone ads based on their observable behaviour about the same level of social acceptability as crapping on their doorstep

Every time. Every ?!%@# time on HN. "Here's a story about police state overreach and unconstitutional privacy violation. And that's obviously very bad. Now let me tell you how the really important thing here is how much Google sucks."

[autoexec]

Feeling guilty? Everyone will happily stop shitting on Google the moment they stop being evil.

[ajross]

Shitting on Google in a thread about the tech industry is fine. Hijacking a thread about literal state surveillance dystopian policies to talk about advertising (!!) is certifiable.

What it tells me is that the commenter is unserious about actual civil liberties, because "the government's bayonets will always be pointed at the Other People", where Google is the enemy they can see today. Historically that always ends up with the bayonets winning.

[lifeisstillgood]

(The commenter) - honestly is not a google comment - the “selling ads” Thing s convenient short hand for the use of unequal access to information to enrich the elite at expense of others. Im not sure what the bayonets comment is but I think (perhaps hope) that the next shift in power in Western world will be over regulations not guns. That may be naive and the elites may force it, but one hopes the dystopia is obvious and the alternatives not too bad.

Perhaps I need a longer format to put my views out and be challenged.