Saturday Metaverse

View : : :
59 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
59.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 30, 2023, 16:16
59.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 30, 2023, 16:16
Nov 30, 2023, 16:16
 
RedEye9 wrote on Nov 30, 2023, 15:12:
Sorry that obvious facts triggered you.
I don't think end users are as ignorant or shortsighted as you claim.
As for Google "driving out all the competition", sounds like capitalism to me.
Wal-Mart anyone?

I didn't say end users are ignorant or short sighted, I said that they care about their perspective as they aren't Youtube shareholders. People aren't installing adblockers in large enough numbers for Google to act because they care so much about Youtube making money, your argument defeats itself. Google has made Youtube a worse product for consumers through its various abuses of power and it is wildly profitable already operating in a vacuum so the capitalism bit is a misnomer. It's how they are making money and what they are doing to consumers that matters.

But hey I'm glad to see you swing over to right wing fiscal policy later in life, welcome
Avatar 51617
58.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 30, 2023, 16:03
58.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 30, 2023, 16:03
Nov 30, 2023, 16:03
 
I've kind of avoided this, but a few points or thoughts:

1) Personally, I don't care much if people pirate, so long as they admit they're doing something wrong. When they start reverse moralizing it as they're the heroes, and they have a right to do it, no. Not really. But if you know you're doing something wrong, but don't care because Google sucks, have at it.

2) The large part of why Google is going crazy with this is just interest rates. We're seeing this in lots of areas. Money used to be so close to free that running at a loss could be profitable for a business. Users led to capital and valuation, so losing money didn't matter because you could still bring in so much money in other ways. That's no longer true, so now businesses that weren't making money are being forced to find ways to

3) YouTube is absolutely becoming more frustrating to use. And there's no real alternative. We helped build this world, but man, does it suck

4) Google, in general, is really just becoming a company I personally hate. They've dumbed down Search and made it useless. They've made reverse image searching on mobile more about finding a product to buy and less about finding where else an image is. They're constantly mucking with Chrome on Android to add more steps to do the same things (bookmarks now have extra clicks, the whole tab grid thing they keep forcing is moronic, searching a term it thinks is local forces you to make a choice around location services that you can't click to skip even if you're not doing a location based search, the gmail app keeps putting promoted bullshit at the top of my mailbox, even though that's turned off, which destroys the chronological view, etc.) Every decision Google seems to make lately just seems to require extra effort from me to do the same things I've enjoyed.

5) Can I rant about how much I hate YouTube shorts being in my feed on Roku? But Shorts and whatever the text posts are have ruined the app, too. At least there I can turn it off, though it sometimes turns back on. No, I don't need to see tweets in my subscription list, I just want to see a video to watch.

57.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 30, 2023, 15:12
57.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 30, 2023, 15:12
Nov 30, 2023, 15:12
 
jdreyer wrote on Nov 29, 2023, 16:17:
One of the big issues with YT's and Google's abusive ad and data collecting practices is a lack of government regulation.

1) US antitrust is horribly broken. There should be many competing video streaming platforms, but YT is essentially a monopoly, so it gets away with abusing users and creators that have nowhere else to go.

2) US lacks strong privacy regulations. This is due largely due to corporations having the ability to fund legislators without limit because "free speech." It's essentially legalized bribery, and it prevents legislation that protects people instead of corporations from being passed.
QFT


Verno wrote on Nov 30, 2023, 14:42:
RedEye9 wrote on Nov 29, 2023, 14:49:
https://grammarbrain.com/loosing-or-losing/

The last time I checked, the only reason to be in business is to make money. And if you’re a publicly traded company, you need to protect your brand and make as much money as you humanly can.
So yes, Google is obviously making money off of YouTube but guess what there’s more money to be made. And they’re going to go after it. And the game of whack-a-mole continues.
And just because a company purchased a “thing” that was previously free does not mean they have to continue providing that same free service, which we all know costs money to run.

Google bought Youtube and proceeded to operate it at a loss for more than a decade, intentionally driving out all of the competition before finally trying to make a profit with it now that it has none. End users don't care about Youtube making money, they aren't shareholders and they don't give a fuck about that perspective (nor should they). There's always going to be pushback from users when they perceive a major deficiency with a product that inconveniences them.
Sorry that obvious facts triggered you.
I don't think end users are as ignorant or shortsighted as you claim.
As for Google "driving out all the competition", sounds like capitalism to me.
Wal-Mart anyone?
"I expect death to be nothingness and by removing from me all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." Isaac Asimov
Avatar 58135
56.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 30, 2023, 14:42
56.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 30, 2023, 14:42
Nov 30, 2023, 14:42
 
RedEye9 wrote on Nov 29, 2023, 14:49:
https://grammarbrain.com/loosing-or-losing/

The last time I checked, the only reason to be in business is to make money. And if you’re a publicly traded company, you need to protect your brand and make as much money as you humanly can.
So yes, Google is obviously making money off of YouTube but guess what there’s more money to be made. And they’re going to go after it. And the game of whack-a-mole continues.
And just because a company purchased a “thing” that was previously free does not mean they have to continue providing that same free service, which we all know costs money to run.

Google bought Youtube and proceeded to operate it at a loss for more than a decade, intentionally driving out all of the competition before finally trying to make a profit with it now that it has none. End users don't care about Youtube making money, they aren't shareholders and they don't give a fuck about that perspective (nor should they). There's always going to be pushback from users when they perceive a major deficiency with a product that inconveniences them.
Avatar 51617
55.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 29, 2023, 16:17
55.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 29, 2023, 16:17
Nov 29, 2023, 16:17
 
One of the big issues with YT's and Google's abusive ad and data collecting practices is a lack of government regulation.

1) US antitrust is horribly broken. There should be many competing video streaming platforms, but YT is essentially a monopoly, so it gets away with abusing users and creators that have nowhere else to go.

2) US lacks strong privacy regulations. This is due largely due to corporations having the ability to fund legislators without limit because "free speech." It's essentially legalized bribery, and it prevents legislation that protects people instead of corporations from being passed.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
54.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 29, 2023, 14:49
54.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 29, 2023, 14:49
Nov 29, 2023, 14:49
 
https://grammarbrain.com/loosing-or-losing/

The last time I checked, the only reason to be in business is to make money. And if you’re a publicly traded company, you need to protect your brand and make as much money as you humanly can.
So yes, Google is obviously making money off of YouTube but guess what there’s more money to be made. And they’re going to go after it. And the game of whack-a-mole continues.
And just because a company purchased a “thing” that was previously free does not mean they have to continue providing that same free service, which we all know costs money to run.
"I expect death to be nothingness and by removing from me all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." Isaac Asimov
Avatar 58135
53.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 29, 2023, 14:36
53.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 29, 2023, 14:36
Nov 29, 2023, 14:36
 
Okay, gotcha, thought you were replying to my loss-leader comment.

No of course they need to pay for their infrastructure, and I don't think anyone is really saying they should be offering Youtube for free. My point, and I think most people's point here, is that even if Youtube was loosing money, Google would likely consider it worthwhile to promote their brand.

BTW: Despite Youtube claiming that adblocker's are hurting them, seems like they're making plenty of money. So there seem to be plenty of noobs out there who don't use an adblocker:

Internet video giant YouTube larded its coffers with $7.95 billion in ad revenue for third quarter of 2023, representing a 12.5% year-over-year increase, as parent Alphabet overall topped Wall Street forecasts.

Analysts had projected YouTube advertising revenue to come in at $7.81 billion for the quarter, per FactSet. The stronger-than-expected results, which execs said came from both brand and direct-response advertising, come after YouTube fell short of expectations in the year-ago period, when ad revenue dropped 1.9%.

https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/youtube-q3-2023-alphabet-earnings-1235766877/

"Turns out I’m 'woke.' All along, I thought I was just compassionate, kind, and good at history. "
Avatar 22380
52.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 29, 2023, 14:18
52.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 29, 2023, 14:18
Nov 29, 2023, 14:18
 
The Flying Penguin wrote on Nov 29, 2023, 12:27:
It absolutely is.

And do you seriously think Youtube needs you to sign in to an account to make money off you? Sure, Google would prefer you log in to use Youtube, and some people do because it's convenient to use the subscribe feature. Some people also may get an account because they realize they can upload videos for free. But even if you don't log in with an account, you're another eyeball in their eco system, and they can harvest plenty of info about you without an account, and again, maybe using Youtube will introduce you to other Google services.

If you read the conversation, the "loss leader" bit is in response to those who think that YouTube should cease their current revenue models/practices and return to offering their service completely free, without ads or even data collection - without any obligation on behalf of the user. ie without any revenue model - essentially as a "public good"

... or to reduce their argument further "YouTube shouldn't make money off its users"

When I ask how, as a for-profit business, they would then fund this multi-exabyte infrastructure.... "well that's YouTube/Google's problem"
51.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 29, 2023, 12:27
51.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 29, 2023, 12:27
Nov 29, 2023, 12:27
 
YouTube does not really fit a "loss leader" model either. (by that as video content delivery it means the typical use does not translate to a need for other Alphabet services - you don't even need an associated google account to use YouTube)

It absolutely is.

And do you seriously think Youtube needs you to sign in to an account to make money off you? Sure, Google would prefer you log in to use Youtube, and some people do because it's convenient to use the subscribe feature. Some people also may get an account because they realize they can upload videos for free. But even if you don't log in with an account, you're another eyeball in their eco system, and they can harvest plenty of info about you without an account, and again, maybe using Youtube will introduce you to other Google services.
"Turns out I’m 'woke.' All along, I thought I was just compassionate, kind, and good at history. "
Avatar 22380
50.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 29, 2023, 12:06
50.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 29, 2023, 12:06
Nov 29, 2023, 12:06
 
G.oZ wrote on Nov 26, 2023, 00:12:
Which came first

Obnoxious ads came first, pretty early on the web. Adblockers came much, much later.

This isn't even a debate, it's history.
49.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 28, 2023, 22:35
49.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 28, 2023, 22:35
Nov 28, 2023, 22:35
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 28, 2023, 14:39:
Bullshit. It's only unrealistic to you because you can't envision a company that legitimately stands behind a product without fucking over users. I provided you a direct example of how a free service works. You chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your corposhill narrative.

And, at the end of the day, that's what you are. You are a corposhill and I am done with you.

So I repeatedly say that many of YouTube's practices are abhorrent and reprehensible, and I'm a corposhill? I say that they need to completely restructure/change their currently awful way of revenue generation, and I'm a corposhill? I point out Amazon's deplorable treatment of workers, and I'm a corposhill. I point out these corps are abusing/breaking the patent system and I'm a corposhill.

It seems to me that you read from me "A corporation needs to generate revenue to fund a service" and interpret that as me saying "these corporations are right and just to abuse users in whatever awful way they deem fit to generate profit"

The need for revenue generation and the how of revenue generation are separate.

- the how: YES there are MASSIVE problems with the way YouTube generates income.
- the need: It is entirely unreasonable to expect a business to provide $billions of services free without any obligation from the user, or a way to generate funds to pay for it.

YouTube does not really fit a "loss leader" model either. (by that as video content delivery it means the typical use does not translate to a need for other Alphabet services - you don't even need an associated google account to use YouTube)

You say you provide a small repository service for free that has about 20TB/month data usage. I assume you fund this from other income you have. Could you continue providing this service if you had reduced or at worst lost all other sources of income? I presume this service is a small add-on cost that both benefits and helps retain clients. Or is it entirely altruistic? Can anyone in the world use it? Do you not expect this service to contribute in anyway to future business income & client growth/retention? Is it a business expense you claim on tax?

You planned for up to 100TB of data/month. (I'm not sure what bandwidth you need, is it more than a gigabit?) What if you experienced a sudden influx of use where you suddenly needed petabyte scale storage and 10 petabytes a month of data without an equivalent growth in your other business areas?
48.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 28, 2023, 14:39
48.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 28, 2023, 14:39
Nov 28, 2023, 14:39
 
G.oZ wrote on Nov 28, 2023, 13:15:
I know it's not your job to make google money. But here you are, by the tone of your posts, legitimately expecting google/Alphabet to provide a service which costs them $billions a year completely free - that it should be free, all because YouTube started off in 2005/2006 offering it free as a start up to get growth when it wasn't owned by Google. It is wholly unrealistic.

Bullshit. It's only unrealistic to you because you can't envision a company that legitimately stands behind a product without fucking over users. I provided you a direct example of how a free service works. You chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your corposhill narrative.

And, at the end of the day, that's what you are. You are a corposhill and I am done with you.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
47.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 28, 2023, 13:15
47.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 28, 2023, 13:15
Nov 28, 2023, 13:15
 
Prez wrote on Nov 28, 2023, 07:16:
but to me you are a corporatized, brainwashed zombie who defends the indefensible

Have I been defending google's practices? I've expressed my opinion that many of their practices are reprehensive. What I have been doing is stating the fact that a private business service structure that costs multi-billions to run & operate would therefore need a revenue stream - and countering the opinion that this multi-billion dollar service should be perpetually free because Google is evil. I've never said that it is OK to make money the way that google does, just that this service requires a revenue stream. It is a realist view set apart from the internet utopia of free software/services coded by devs for free and funded by donations.

because one of the most shameless, disgusting examples of unstoppable corporate greed has started pushing people too far.

As I said your moral outrage is completely justified, yet you still use the service. I am aware of the hypocrisy in myself in this regard. Buying/using products from companies that exploit/abuse their workers/suppliers.

Now feel free to discuss videogames in other threads with me, because that is why we are all here.

Well, this site is a gaming + tech + tech news + political tech news site. Has been for years. Also funny animal video links, because that is really what the internet is about.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 28, 2023, 11:55:
Far from it.

Let me reiterate again that this is not a user side problem. This is 100% a Google side problem. We are under no onus to guarantee that Google makes money

I know it's not your job to make google money. But here you are, by the tone of your posts, legitimately expecting google/Alphabet to provide a service which costs them $billions a year completely free - that it should be free, all because YouTube started off in 2005/2006 offering it free as a start up to get growth when it wasn't owned by Google. It is wholly unrealistic.

Note: As stated above, this is separate from the issue of how YouTube makes money. The how is something I also take great issue with. The how needs a drastic restructure.
46.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 28, 2023, 11:55
46.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 28, 2023, 11:55
Nov 28, 2023, 11:55
 
G.oZ wrote on Nov 28, 2023, 01:34:
However this makes no logical sense. YouTube was a smaller thing with explosive growth created by some PayPal ppls through venture capital that, surprise, had money issues (including legal), and was bought and commercialised where it now occupies the #1/2 bandwidth spot on the internet with $billions in infrastructure and running costs. YouTube would have fallen over if it didn't get bought & introduce revenue streams. How one can expect it to remain free cause that's how it was seems bafflingly obtuse.

Far from it.

If I offer a service for free and I decide to suddenly start abusing my users to turn a profit, that's ridiculously unethical. If I failed to accommodate and plan for growth in that service, and the operational realities stemming from that growth in CAPEX and OPEX, then the failure is mine from the outset. From where I am sitting, I don't get to start abusing my users to recoup losses incurred due to the failure of that planning. As I run a repo server that transfers about 20TB a month of data, I am well familiar with CAPEX and OPEX costs of running a free service. I soak them up because that's just the cost of doing "business". I planned for that soak from the outset all the way up to 100TB of transfer a month, including CAPEX for additional servers, maintenance, and so forth. Google has way more money than I do and far more engineers. They should have foreseen and planned for growth from the date of purchase without abusing users to cover that growth. If they need to make money, put up a damn paywall and stop being abusive dicks. This is neither hard to understand nor difficult calculus.

As Prez pointed out, Google's revenue stream is not my problem. How they choose to abuse their users is, however, and I have every right to combat that abuse on the networks and systems that I control. And I do. As vehemently and aggressively as possible. If that kills YouTube...oh well. As Prez also pointed out, I have lived a vast majority of my life without YouTube and I can again. I actually don't use YouTube as much these days because their content restriction rules change so frequently and so incoherently that calling them schizophrenic would be charitable. Most of my video watching is done on other platforms that are more temperate and reliable in their content moderation. I also pay for them either in Patreon, subs, or a mixture of both.

Let me reiterate again that this is not a user side problem. This is 100% a Google side problem. We are under no onus to guarantee that Google makes money nor are we required to just lie back and accept their abuse. It doesn't matter what they offer or how they offer it. That is entirely irrelevant and meaningless.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
45.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 28, 2023, 07:16
Prez
 
45.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 28, 2023, 07:16
Nov 28, 2023, 07:16
 Prez
 
It just seems weird to me that people feel morally justified in doing so, even proud of the fact. "Yeah I use it for free and don't have to deal with their BS ads!"

Well, here's the thing: I don't give a two-penny damn as to what you think I am morally justified to do or not. I don't need to measure up to your self-important, wrong-headed standard. No offense intended, but to me you are a corporatized, brainwashed zombie who defends the indefensible while demonizing customers who have been constantly disrespected, exploited, and taken advantage of. That seems so backwards to me - being that you are just a customer just like me, and thus I really just feel sorry for you. Things can "just feel weird to" you all day long. I really don't care - I cannot stress this enough. It's not going to change until Google makes changes. Let me be a 'free-loading thief' because you're not making inroads or winning hearts and minds here. You are not appealing to my emotions or penetrating my cold black heart. To me you are a corporate shill and can only be felt sorry for.

Now feel free to discuss videogames in other threads with me, because that is why we are all here. Or don't. You can try to continue to spin your wheels calling good people free-loaders and thieves because one of the most shameless, disgusting examples of unstoppable corporate greed has started pushing people too far. But I am done with this thread. I should have been done several posts ago, but I have tried not being dismissive; like them or not, you have gotten all of the answers you are going to get.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
44.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 28, 2023, 01:34
44.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 28, 2023, 01:34
Nov 28, 2023, 01:34
 
Prez wrote on Nov 27, 2023, 23:01:
You've been polite in your determination to get me to talk about why I feel how I feel, so I will say thank you for that by trying to answer with a little more context.

Thanks - I understand that, I really do. It makes sense to go "I really hate what this company is doing and the way they're trying to generate revenue feels exploitative and intrusive." I get the whole "give an inch" idea as well - you starting giving in to these practices without pushback and where will it end?

I can also understand feeling ok with using the service whilst blocking all their BS data mining and ad delivery - and not being a revenue source for them.

It just seems weird to me that people feel morally justified in doing so, even proud of the fact. "Yeah I use it for free and don't have to deal with their BS ads!"

Then again, I've seen recent surveys where a surprising amount of people are ok with not scanning an item or two at the self-service checkout at supermarket because "inflation" and "ripoff prices" and "they're a huge corporation that make billions" (even though their actual profit margin hasn't really changed much in the last decade - it might be 2.5 to 3% of gross sales). That is actual physical theft that they somehow talk themselves into regarding as not real theft.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Nov 27, 2023, 23:03:
Pretty simple. That service was offered for free from the beginning.

However this makes no logical sense. YouTube was a smaller thing with explosive growth created by some PayPal ppls through venture capital that, surprise, had money issues (including legal), and was bought and commercialised where it now occupies the #1/2 bandwidth spot on the internet with $billions in infrastructure and running costs. YouTube would have fallen over if it didn't get bought & introduce revenue streams. How one can expect it to remain free cause that's how it was seems bafflingly obtuse.

btw Research suggest that the first ad delivery methods were being trialled in 2006 and the first commercial invideo ad was served in Aug 2007. Although apparently they has sponsored videos prior(?)

However the outrage you have at the behaviour of YouTube is totally justified, I understand that YouTube also has entirely scummy practices that really F over content creators - especially smaller ones, and that these corporations are generally as shitty as they can get away with being. They also don't care if their big revenue generators are scumbags either.

The level of moral and ethical outrage expressed here at google/YouTube is palpable. Real justified outrage at many of their practices that has generated post after post here expounding on all the things wrong with YouTube.

Yet, despite that, all will continue to use this ethically bankrupt service. "This company is PURE EVIL .... let me get content delivered from them."

Most of us I guess are ethical hypocrites. I subscribe to Amazon Prime - which treats workers like shit.
43.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 27, 2023, 23:03
43.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 27, 2023, 23:03
Nov 27, 2023, 23:03
 
G.oZ wrote on Nov 27, 2023, 22:27:
I'm just interested in the thought process:

You, and many others, want - and half seem to expect - a resource intensive service for free (with thousands of actual people with jobs and $billions of hardware and upkeep behind it). How does that make sense?

Seriously - what is your thought process behind it?

Pretty simple. That service was offered for free from the beginning. Google came along, bought it, and decided to change the rules after the initial rules had been accepted. I can only speak for myself but I find that more than a wee bit unethical and I am under no obligation to entertain or even facilitate unethical behavior. Ads didn't show up until ~2009 or so, if I recall, and they weren't the obnoxious, intrusive nightmares that they are today. Google made them that way. I was fine with the ads in the beginning because I rarely saw them.

Then, on top of that, Google decided to fuck over uploaders which is why you near constantly hear "Subscribe, Like, Share, Comment, and Turn on Notifications" in almost every single damn video now. Also, clickbait titles like "You will NEVER believe what happens next". Why? Because Google pulled the rug out from underneath them, too.

As I pointed out initially, this current state of affairs is entirely Google's fault. Instead of owning their fuckups, Google has decided to double down on punishing users and exacerbating the problem they created.

I want to point out, too, that I am fine with some advertising in some things. Some of the podcasts I listen to that are an hour+ long have like two ads in them that are ~15 seconds a piece on average. That's not a problem and a fair trade. Most of the advertisements fit in to the theme of the show and actually interest me. For example, there are no Linux podcasts that I listen to that are hawking Hello Fresh or Sheath underwear. Linode, Backblaze, Kolide, Tailscale, and others get mentioned but it fits in to the theme.

But at the end of it all, I think it is disingenuous at best to act shocked when the thing you offer for free is being used for free. If you don't want it to be free, put up a paywall. Otherwise, accept what you've created and stop being a dick about it.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
42.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 27, 2023, 23:01
Prez
 
42.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 27, 2023, 23:01
Nov 27, 2023, 23:01
 Prez
 
You've been polite in your determination to get me to talk about why I feel how I feel, so I will say thank you for that by trying to answer with a little more context.

If I pay for premium, Google still tracks my internet usage and sells my data. I end up getting spam emails, spam texts, spam phone calls. Fucking ads everywhere - specifically based on what I had the gall to search for a few days earlier or places I went with my phone in my pocket. Even though I pay for premium. I paid for a Google Pixel phone, but that isn't enough. They track everything about me every second I use it until I expend considerable effort to prevent them from doing so. I shouldn't have to work as hard as I do just to get back to the basic transaction of 'they sell a product and I buy the product at an agreed upon price'. There is a constant knock-on effect - the proverbial "give them an inch and they take a mile". I am constantly on the losing end of the deal because they no longer believe in a one-off honest transaction. I refuse to be served ads because they have escalated far beyond the point of absurdity, and to deny that fact in any capacity is ludicrous. If I worked at Google, I know how I would advise that they maintain a level of decency in the way they do business, but the chances that they would stop crossing the line of complete exploitation of their customers are zero. It's not my fault that they are too stupid or too greedy to ever stop to realize that the ever-increasing saddling their customers with more and more bullshit will cost them more than if they backed off and started actually respecting their customers rather than treating them like cattle to be continuously milked. That might come across as a specific gripe against Google but in actuality you could apply that equally to almost every corporation you could name.

I'm not a thief (again it's perfectly fine if you think I am) but I am not being exploited and allowing my privacy invaded so Google can continue on their blind quest for more revenue just so I can watch a goddamn video. Return to the basic principle of honest transaction for a service rendered and I am all about honoring my end of the bargain. Until then, I not only don't care if they fail; I actually hope they do.

This comment was edited on Nov 27, 2023, 23:53.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
41.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 27, 2023, 22:49
41.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 27, 2023, 22:49
Nov 27, 2023, 22:49
 
G.oZ wrote on Nov 27, 2023, 16:27:
One point: I didn't realise google was stealing my identity - "identity theft" is its own thing separate from data mining and should be a separate topic. As far as I'm aware google isn't trying to hijack my identity to commit financial or other fraud.

You're conflating your meatspace identity with your digital identity. They are separate and distinct but equally critical things. Your digital identity is, essentially, a profile harvested by third parties and first parties alike based on many criteria. What you buy, what you watch, what you like or respond to on social media, and so on. All of it goes to build a profile that identifies you even if your legal name isn't known. You didn't think all that data harvesting wasn't being aggregated, did you?

If you didn't consent to the creation of that profile, then, yes, your digital identity is being stolen.

/---\


The Flying Penguin wrote on Nov 27, 2023, 17:44:
...that's the price you pay for "free" services, get over it...

Nonsense. I use a free OS, free software, and free services daily and not a one of them has asked me to cough up data for their use. I don't buy the apathetic "Well, you have to let them harvest you to get something". Not for a second. Especially in light of the fact that there are many services, software, and even OSes that you can get for free without allowing it. Literally anyone can.

However, that being said, I also support those projects financially because I recognize that they're providing a community service and good. I want to see them stick around because I believe in the products and the reason for their creation. I'm OK with others who don't, for whatever reason.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
40.
 
Re: Saturday Metaverse
Nov 27, 2023, 22:27
40.
Re: Saturday Metaverse Nov 27, 2023, 22:27
Nov 27, 2023, 22:27
 
I'm just interested in the thought process:

You, and many others, want - and half seem to expect - a resource intensive service for free (with thousands of actual people with jobs and $billions of hardware and upkeep behind it). How does that make sense?

Seriously - what is your thought process behind it?

59 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older