You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
42 points
*

You’re missing the point/s

  1. What they’re doing is illegal. It has to stop immediately and they have to be held accountable
  2. What they’re doing is immoral and every barrier we can put up against it is a valid pursuit
  3. Restricting Google to data held remotely is a good barrier. They shouldn’t be able to help themselves to users local data, and it’s something that most people can understand: the data that is physically within your system is yours alone. They would have to get permission from each user to transfer that data, which is right.
  4. This legal route commits to personal permissions and is a step to maintaining user data within the country of origin. Far from being a “dead end”, it’s the foundation and beginnings of a sensible policy on data ownership. This far, no further.
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

the data that is physically within your system is yours alone.

Actually, ALL the data Google has on you is yours. Google do not own the data, neither do reddit, Facebook or anyone else. They merely have a licence.

Personally I think even that is illegal. Contracts require consideration, you exchange x for y, then you have details in the terms and conditions. This is like “come in for free!” and then everything is in the terms and conditions. If you look at insurance, they’re required to have a key facts page to bring to the front the main points from the terms in plain English. The cookie splash screen doesn’t really do this, as it obfuscates just how much data they collect, and is for the most part unenforceable as you can’t see what data they hold. Furthermore, the data they collect isn’t proportional to your use of the website.

The whole thing flies in the face of the core principles of contract law under which all trading is done. They tell us our data has no value and it isn’t worth the hassle of us getting paid, yet they use that data to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. We might not know how to make use of that data, and you’ll need a lot of other data to build something to sell, but a manufacturer of nuts and bolts doesn’t know how to build a car - yet they still get paid for a portion of the value derived from their product through others’ work, as most of the value comes from what you can do with it. We’re all being robbed, every single one of us, including politicians and lawmakers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Very good point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they’ve had enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s all well and good that Google want to make money from my data - but they should be paying me for it. The value of my data isn’t from the data itself, but what can be done with it.

You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They are. They provide you with a service for your data. It’s called YouTube. And if they don’t have a place to show you ads, the data is useless because no one will use it. It’s a closed loop.

And even if you don’t agree with it, it’s still a company selling a service and it can do whatever it wants to earn money from it. There’s nothing unethical about that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Nope, but it is legally required to ask for permission to look into my device for data that it does not need to provide the serice.

Of course Google could make money, it just need to make them without violating the laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

I get what you are saying, but you could argue that google is pretty much a monopoly at this point, using their power trying to extract money from customers they could never do if their was any real competition with a similar number of channels and customers.

I think most users see google/youtube as a “the internet”, or a utility as important as power, water and heat. And don’t forget that google already requires users to “pay” for their services with data and ads in other services (maps, search, mail) as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free? Why? What does Google owe us?

They only have the monopoly if we give it to them. I find their model fair, I use their service a lot. if they overprice me I’ll find another form of entertainment.

But you are right, people see YouTube as a necessity at this point. I’m trying to remind you, it’s not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Err, going through threads of conversations on both reddit and lemmy regarding YouTube, one would assume ad free access is the norm and Google even daring to offer Youtube Premium is a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I feel offering Youtube Premium while still tracking the users online movement is indeed a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I think it’s a question of drawing a line between “commercial right” and “public good”.

Mathematical theorems automatically come under public good (because apparently they count as discoveries, which is nonsense - they are constructions), but an artist’s sketch comes under commercial right.

YouTube as a platform is so ubiquitously large, I suspect a lot of people consider it a public good rather than a commercial right. Given there is a large body of educational content, as well as some essential lifesaving content, there is an argument to be made for it. Indeed, even the creative content deserves a platform.

A company that harvests the data of billions, has sold that data without permission for decades, and evades tax like a champion certainly owes a debt of public good.

The actions of Google are not those of a company “seeking their due”, for their due has long since been harvested by their monopolisation of searches, their walked garden appstore, and their use of our data to train their paid AI product.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Honestly if I were a politician I would support legislation restricting permanent bans from major websites from being given out willy-nilly because too many of them are ubiquitous enough to qualify as a public good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

A public good? Like roads, firefighters, etc? You want the government to pay for your Youtube Premium subscription?

Less snarky, if you’re arguing that Youtube has earned a special legal status, a natural consequence is that Google gets to play by a different rulebook from all other competitors. That’s quite a dangerous direction to take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

Unrecognized entitlement on their part, lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

Immoral? For making you watch ads? How are ads immoral? You’re using the service, you watch ads, it’s not rocket surgery

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Youtube makes money off of adblocked users.

They send your watch habit aggregate data profiles to the number crunchers at alphabet hq, to sell off.

They make fuckloads of money off the free video content theyre given as well as the nonstop data stream of demographics data. Thats why alphabet bought it in the first place.

The ads are just bonus cash. They dont want to miss an opportunity to score more money by selling ad space in their data profile mines.

They are being fully compensated by me logging in and feeding them either free labor as video content or free money as data profiles. They can easily keep the lights on off that alone. They dont need more free cash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Its immoral for the way its being done, not what was done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Fuck that noise. Advertising as a whole is mostly immoral, we just got used to it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*

Uh. It’s not immoral to read the data they’ve served to you on the page they’re visiting on their own website. I’m honestly genuinely curious what moral argument you could make, here

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 568K

    Comments