[1morepassword]

We're living in 2013, and this is a tech forum, so let's get real: advertising is about tracking, about total surveillance, not sticking a logo on a bus.

That's what Google does, that's what Google's motives are. Every damn time, so there is no reason to assume this is any different.

That's not a "trade-off", that is surrendering.

If the government would set up a balloon network to track everyone you would be screaming bloody murder, but it's Google and people get internet access in exchange it's okay?

[speeq]

It's okay if I agree to it. I'd rather see ads than pay for all the services Google provides to me free of charge (money). I don't and I'd never agree that a government tracks me. For me, that's a big difference.

If a company uses their profit (e.g. from ads) to provide and finance something as extremely useful and important as free internet access to developing countries - then yes, that's totally fine for me.

Yes this is a forum, people have their own personal opinion.

[1morepassword]

> It's okay if I agree to it.

That's the typical fallacy. If Chinese factory worker agrees to be exploited in conditions close to slavery doesn't mean that that kind of exploitation is "okay".

Tempting people for whom the price of these services is too high to surrender their basic right to privacy is ethically questionable at best, and in my personal opinion should be made illegal.

What if Google asked people to give up their right to vote, would you think that was okay? Were do you draw the line?

The protection of civil liberties includes the protection of those who don't care about them, because if they can sell out their rights to greedy corporations, it affects all of us.

It's not just about your personal choice. A world in which corporations yield such power affects everyone.

[penrod]

A normative statement that you disagree with is not a "fallacy".

Also, seeing as there is no legally enforceable way that Google could ask anyone to surrender their right to vote, it's an odd hypothetical to base an argument on. Especially an argument for restricting people's freedoms.

[throwaway10001]

+If a company uses their profit (e.g. from ads) to provide and finance something as extremely useful and important as free internet access to developing countries - then yes, that's totally fine for me.

Depends how they make that profit and at what expense to competitors, users, society... Would you have felt the same about Microsoft's profit in the 1990's?

A more extreme example: What if Blackwater, Pablo Escobar, Al Capone, Booz Allen etc fund soup kitchen's for the poor?

[abenga]

Yes, it is. Until they use this data for something nefarious, it's cool with me. There are ways of opting out, if you don't like it.