That makes sense. Paying with personal information was the statement that I was responding to. The personal information is worthless without the exposure to advertisements.
We clearly have different views. I believe that a transaction of value (i.e. a payment) is not limited to money, it does include indirect values as well. I.e. if I send my personal data to a advertising corporation - that is a transaction of an indirect value. The direct value of that transaction is of course when receiving money from the one buying the advertisement which is exposed to me. Yet without my personal information, they could possible not have sold it for as much.
I agree that one can pay for something without exchanging money. What I took issue with was your emphasis on paying with personal information, while not mentioning that the personal information was being used in service of the advertisement exposures.
As far as I know, the reason they want my information is to make the actual revenue-generating thing work better. The advertisements would still make Google (far less, but still significant) money without my personal information. My personal information presumably wouldn't generate much significant revenue at all were it not being used in service of advertisements. That's why it seemed odd to me to say that I'm paying with my personal information, and not mention advertising exposures. Perhaps I'm quibbling though!
Anyway, I'm starting to feel like a modern jackass[1]; sorry if this wasn't very clear.