[dismalaf]

> The hate it's about what they did with the power they gained.

Which is???

Serve ads without selling data?

I'm not sure if y'all are aware, but CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data.

Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy. And somehow they're more hated than people who just straight up give your data away.

If most people hate Google all this proves is that most people are retarded.

[godwinson__4-8]

I share your sentiments re google exactly. But the credit card and banks point is also understated.

Google innovates. CCs are basically a monopoly/duopoly, a private tax on an economy where increasingly everyone uses credit for everything. They make money on these transaction costs and banks issuing them make money charging insane interest when your neighbors fall behind, trapping them in a debt cycle. And yes, your purchases get aggregated into data sales.

Have credit cards innovated? Has your bank innovated? At least with Google their services are largely good and they actually innovate at shocking scale. Especially if you are paying for their products it is hard to argue Drive or YouTube haven't gotten better. You're complaining about ads but you want YouTube to be free? Who is going to pay for it?

Meanwhile has your credit card gotten better? Why is the CEO of MasterCard making millions of dollars? If you had to pick the thing in your pocket that is preying on you and you pick your phone, you're not thinking clearly. The answer is your credit card.

[godelski]

  > Serve ads without selling data?

They sell data. Why do you think they don't?

  > CC companies sell your data. Your telecom provider sells your data. Banks sell your data.

You're over simplifying. WHAT data being sold is a critical variable. Same with HOW MUCH. Not all data is created equally. Last I checked, my bank doesn't have real time access to my location. My bank doesn't know everyone I communicate with. Not even my telecom operator knows that! None of your examples know every person that is within ~100 ft of me at any given time.

Look, I don't like that the banks and telecoms have as much data as they do, but let's be serious here, Google has some very serious data on people. Don't be so glib.

  > Which is???

And don't get me started on all the other things. What they've done to the open web. Email. Smartphones. And much more. I don't know how you can think Google is just an ad company when I'm pretty sure you use so much more from them.

[WarmWash]

But what is the alternative, and why is it better?

An Apple-esque internet that gets you a full google-like suite of services, along with news and other general entertainment, all ad/tracking free, but for a cool $300/mo? User friendly, pro-consumer, but only for those who can afford it?

I genuinely struggle to say that a user friendly internet that cuts out 80% of the current global internet user base because they are too poor is a better system.

[godelski]

  > But what is the alternative, and why is it better?

Is this a legitimate question? There's hundreds of projects working on alternatives[0]. There's also... you know... the internet before Google took over. So I'm not quite sure what you're actually asking here. Is this some kinda "gotcha"?

  > An Apple-esque internet

Let me stop you right there. No one wants that either. We want to *go back to* a free and open internet. I don't mean free like you don't pay your ISP[1], but as in you pay your ISP for access to their pipelines and then that's it. That's the contract. No snooping. None of that. They laid the fiber and they're paid for that service.

  > all ad/tracking free, but for a cool $300/mo? User friendly, pro-consumer, but only for those who can afford it?

Oh man, the overton window has shifted real far here. I'm not wholeheartedly against ads existing, but I am against Surveillance Capitalism. We can't even begin to have a meaningful conversation if we conflate these things. If "having ads" is equivalent to Surveillance Capitalism, then there's no conversation to be had. Your account is young, so I'm guessing you haven't been around these parts long either. It hasn't always been this way.

  > I genuinely struggle to say that a user friendly internet that cuts out 80% of the current global internet user base because they are too poor is a better system.

This is a false dichotomy. It is a lie big tech sells to make you accept what they do. It's no different than the personal carbon footprint campaign[2].

  [0] Network effect has multiple meanings here and it often does hinder their goals. 
  [1] Well it's not like we can truly setup global mesh networks, but hey, maybe one day.
  [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook

[WarmWash]

I've been on the internet since the mid 90's, and thankfully grown up since then. People don't want to work for free, and the people who are paid to work produce far better products for far wider audiences. This is just flatly true

So having established that, repeatedly, over 30 years, it's clear that a functioning internet needs money (what a surprise) to run optimally.

You hand wave away my first point and didn't provide any examples. So please, give me a service or product with mass-market penetration (read: you can frequently find people on the street using it) that isn't ad-funded or direct payment funded. It's hard to come up with one, much less five, much less the tens of thousands that would need to exist.

[what]

> Not even my telecom operator knows that!

They sure do and certainly know who is within 100ft of you at any given time.

[godelski]

Your telecom company can triangulate you through their towers, but they don't have access to your phone's WiFi antenna, bluetooth, NFC, nor GPS. Google and Apple have all of that. Snoop on what they're sniffing and I doubt you'll agree that the telecom companies comes anywhere near to what Google and Apple have.

[dismalaf]

> They sell data

Show me where I can buy it then?

Because I know where to buy CC data, for example...

> Not even my telecom operator knows that!

Lol: https://thingspace.verizon.com/services/hyper-precise-locati...

[taneq]

> Google figured out a system to sell access while keeping your privacy.

This would be the new Google’s definition of privacy, ie. only you and Google have access to your private data.

The new Google does not, of course, have a word (nor hence the concept) of data to which Google does not have rightful access.

[hn_acc1]

If it wasn't for Google (and ads), my bank might not have even considered selling my data.. They only sold the credit bureaus in the past, AFAIK. Now it's considered a "must have"..

[dismalaf]

Lol, traders and hedge funds are 100x more interested in the data banks have than advertisers.

[inigyou]

¿Por qué no los dos?