Most active commenters
  • GiorgioG(3)
  • PaulHoule(3)
  • Workaccount2(3)
  • 93po(3)
  • JohnFen(3)
  • anton-c(3)

←back to thread

467 points bundie | 77 comments | | HN request time: 1.263s | source | bottom
1. bix6 ◴[] No.44501849[source]
These big tech companies are so frustrating. Why does every single aspect of our digital lives need to be monitored? It’s like whack a mole trying to get the most basic of privacy.
replies(11): >>44501894 #>>44501898 #>>44501908 #>>44502015 #>>44502072 #>>44502187 #>>44502307 #>>44502354 #>>44502912 #>>44503006 #>>44503118 #
2. saubeidl ◴[] No.44501894[source]
Because that way they can build profiles of you and use them to manipulate you into buying junk you don't need. That, in turn, makes the line go up and the share holders happy.

That's tech capitalism in a nutshell.

replies(3): >>44501905 #>>44502122 #>>44502347 #
3. GiorgioG ◴[] No.44501898[source]
Monetization. If people aren’t willing to pay for the products, these companies have figured out how to make the customers’ data the product.
replies(6): >>44501956 #>>44501997 #>>44502007 #>>44502179 #>>44502763 #>>44504411 #
4. RiverCrochet ◴[] No.44501905[source]
Why do I keep getting ads for stuff I can't afford then?
replies(6): >>44501928 #>>44502032 #>>44502035 #>>44502087 #>>44502112 #>>44502275 #
5. IncreasePosts ◴[] No.44501908[source]
What exactly is being monitored? It looks like this enabled Gemini to send a message via Whatsapp if you ask it to.

Maybe the problem is what you consider a privacy violation, other users consider a feature.

replies(3): >>44501967 #>>44502005 #>>44502381 #
6. dylan604 ◴[] No.44501928{3}[source]
How else are you going to keep up with the Joneses? They are just looking out for your social wellbeing
7. hmmokidk ◴[] No.44501956[source]
This is a dumb take. They will make money every way they can.
8. shortn ◴[] No.44501967[source]
RTFA.

Don't act like your opinion is the only one that matters. You may not, but other people do care about their privacy.

"Here's the thing: Google promises that under normal circumstances, Gemini cannot read or summarize your WhatsApp messages. But, and this is a big but, with the "help" of the Google Assistant or the Utilities app, it may view your messages (including images), read and respond to your WhatsApp notifications, and more."

Doesn't matter what your opinion is on privacy, google doesn't give you the option to opt out. - "regardless of whether your Gemini Apps Activity is on or off."

replies(2): >>44502124 #>>44503716 #
9. sudobash1 ◴[] No.44501997[source]
You can pay for Google services. But even if you pay for Google One or YouTube premium, I'm sure that Google will still track your behavior and mine your data. Why would a company not "double-dip"?
replies(3): >>44502016 #>>44502346 #>>44504112 #
10. VohuMana ◴[] No.44502005[source]
I think if I understand the article correctly it sounds like Google might also be reading the messages so it can respond for you. Regardless I think the other thing people might not be happy about is Gemini can still interact with apps regardless of if you have app activity turned on or off, as quoted from the linked email in the article: What's changing Gemini will soon be able to help you use Phone, Messages, WhatsApp, and Utilities on your phone, whether your Gemini Apps Activity is on or off
replies(1): >>44502139 #
11. ◴[] No.44502007[source]
12. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.44502016{3}[source]
Even better, by paying you prove that you have disposable income. You are a more attractive cow for advertisers to milk.
replies(1): >>44502147 #
13. pengaru ◴[] No.44502032{3}[source]
> Why do I keep getting ads for stuff I can't afford then?

You must be new here, have you not yet unlocked the wonders of credit card debt?

14. ozgrakkurt ◴[] No.44502035{3}[source]
Work more so you can buy more
15. jazzyjackson ◴[] No.44502072[source]
simple solution: don't have a digital life
replies(1): >>44502144 #
16. bakugo ◴[] No.44502087{3}[source]
Get with the times, grandpa. Thanks to the wonders of buy-now-pay-later services, we don't have to worry about that anymore, just stop thinking and consume!
17. jfyi ◴[] No.44502112{3}[source]
I largely get ads for things I already have bought. Otherwise, it's really general demographic stuff that doesn't strike a chord.

I assume it's because I don't really browse for buyables unless I have the intent of buying something immediately. On a personal level, I fail entirely to understand the value proposition in web advertising.

18. soco ◴[] No.44502122[source]
Buying junk is so yesterday. Today the game is to feed you conspiracies and farm political support.
19. jeroenhd ◴[] No.44502124{3}[source]
The article claims Gemini can read your messages but Google denies that. From Google's own documentation:

> What Gemini can’t do with WhatsApp

> Read or summarize your messages

> Add or read images, gifs, or memes in your messages

> Add or play audio or videos in your messages

> Read or respond to WhatsApp notifications

Of course, it's possible neowin says Google is lying, but they'll need to come up with something better than "maybe something may happen in the future" if they're going to make these claims.

20. jeroenhd ◴[] No.44502139{3}[source]
Google's own documentation explicitly states it cannot read your messages or notifications. You can ask it to compose a message for you or start a call, though.
21. kelseyfrog ◴[] No.44502144[source]
As someone without a digital life, Simple ≠ Easy.
replies(1): >>44502355 #
22. PaulHoule ◴[] No.44502147{4}[source]
My favorite example of this is the thoroughly craven New York Times which puts content behind a paywall and loads it with awful ads aimed at people who’ve proven they are made of money.

Contrast that certain TV dayparts saturated with subprime ads promoting Medicare scams and other offerings for people who can’t spend their own money on things except for an occasional ad for a car dealer because if people weren’t driving you’d have much less reason to call a personal injury lawyer.

Ad free tiers for Netflix and whatnot have the problem that people who won’t pay for ad free aren’t really worth advertising to.

replies(1): >>44502363 #
23. dockerd ◴[] No.44502179[source]
Most paid streaming services now started showing ads because they are looking for more revenue and profit.
replies(1): >>44509845 #
24. ◴[] No.44502187[source]
25. bonoboTP ◴[] No.44502275{3}[source]
So that when you see all that stuff you can't afford on the neighbor/coworker or your friend's place, you can be envious, so their spending was worth it.

Same with all those car and watch ads in magazines. It's not like regular people are constantly looking to buy a new car. But the brand must be etched into brains. Your neighbor must be reasonably convinced that people around him are on the same page regarding the prestige of a certain brand, else it's not worth spending on. So even if you can't afford whatever car model, the fact that you're aware that it's prestigious is already worth it.

This is somewhat weaker in personalized online ads because your neighbor can't know what ads you saw. Billboards and super bowl ads a much better for establishing common knowledge, but perhaps that's why influencer-based marketing is gaining ground. All followers know that all followers saw the embedded ad. Maybe they should introduce ads where it says "Your friend Joe Schmo watched the following ad:"

replies(1): >>44505072 #
26. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44502307[source]
Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model.
replies(8): >>44502387 #>>44502423 #>>44502587 #>>44502843 #>>44502956 #>>44503131 #>>44503558 #>>44503861 #
27. GiorgioG ◴[] No.44502346{3}[source]
You can choose not to use Google at all. Pay other companies like FastMail. Kagi for search, etc.
28. okanat ◴[] No.44502347[source]
I wonder how much of this is actual advertising working (proven by independent A/B testing) and how much of it is big tech bullshitting their shareholders and customers. Even Veritasium had a video ~10 years ago, describing Facebook's way of reducing view counts to coerce advertisers to pay higher.
29. SoftTalker ◴[] No.44502355{3}[source]
I find it pretty easy. I don't have WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, LinkIn, or anything else really besides a few forum memberships like the one here.
replies(2): >>44502875 #>>44509919 #
30. GiorgioG ◴[] No.44502363{5}[source]
> My favorite example of this is the thoroughly craven New York Times which puts content behind a paywall and loads it with awful ads aimed at people who’ve proven they are made of money.

It's almost as if you don't remember the good old days when the NY Times sold you a physical newspaper...that was (and still is) stuffed with ads.

replies(2): >>44502466 #>>44504906 #
31. bee_rider ◴[] No.44502381[source]
One problem with this sort of thing is that—sure, we can call privacy violation an opinion and admit that some people have dumb opinions like “I don’t need any privacy.” But unfortunately only one person needs to let the privacy violation bot into the conversation to violate everybody’s privacy, so it isn’t as if your opinion will really be respected.

Of course, the easy solution is that nobody has conversations that might need privacy anymore; people can just always be in public persona mode. Hopefully we don’t end up with a society made up of inauthentic lonely people as a result.

32. xandrius ◴[] No.44502387[source]
Are those the only options?

How about paying once, owning a specific version and that's it?

replies(2): >>44502404 #>>44502471 #
33. dukeyukey ◴[] No.44502404{3}[source]
Not great for a chat app, which needs ongoing active servers and someone to fix stuff that breaks, even if you feature-freeze it.
replies(1): >>44502783 #
34. leptons ◴[] No.44502423[source]
Were we even given a choice? In most cases, no.
35. PaulHoule ◴[] No.44502466{6}[source]
I do. And I remember exposes of the media business circa the 1970s that point out the synergistic relationship between subscriptions and ads, such as Ben Bagdikian pointing out that subscription revenue subsidized ads in daily papers or the fact that magazines like Vogue received much more revenue from advertising than subscriptions but wouldn't be viable if they were free because paying for a subscription qualified you as a consumer.

Lately the folks at my gas station have hit me up for a conversation whenever I was looking at newspapers, usually it is about how shocking it is how little paper you get in local papers for $2.50 or more. There are the funnies and the DBA listings and front-page articles about some chain store that isn't in our town going out of business. They don't bother to send reporters to public meetings like they did 25 years ago, and if there is a local election you might have to wait 36 hours after the results are posted by the board of elections. (Used to be a reason why I bought a paper)

Contrast that to the N.Y. Times which costs $6 or so but is a beast in terms of size (small print too!) although I'd say a lot of the content is vacuous.

36. phalangion ◴[] No.44502471{3}[source]
That works for software, but not as well for services like YouTube
replies(1): >>44503339 #
37. 93po ◴[] No.44502587[source]
people didn't vote for shit, if they could vote they'd vote for no ads and no cost. companies like google destroyed this option on purpose. there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free. if i look for tetris on the app store it's literally impossible to find a version that's both ad free and free of purchases despite the fact that i know there's at minimum 100 options that fit this criteria. google/apple just buries them and deliberately doesnt allow filtering to find them
replies(2): >>44502738 #>>44504099 #
38. thfuran ◴[] No.44502738{3}[source]
>there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free

You can give away software, but running a service costs money. P2p messaging can be free (and signal exists), but nothing like free and adless YouTube or Facebook is going to happen regardless whether google or meta do anything to prevent it.

replies(2): >>44502805 #>>44503246 #
39. CalChris ◴[] No.44502763[source]
We are paying for phones but we are still the product. Google Facebook etc were explicitly created to monetize privacy. What I search for is monetized. Who I know is monetized. Private companies will monetize what we perceive as public goods to our detriment.
40. jjani ◴[] No.44502783{4}[source]
Pretty great for a chat app used by a few billion people, a few $billion is enough to keep things running for many decades. e.g. banks do exactly this, with much more critical and complicated infra.
replies(2): >>44502828 #>>44507324 #
41. jjani ◴[] No.44502805{4}[source]
The Saudis would love to have a platform as popular as YouTube for their image washing purposes, no matter if it costs them a cool $billion or two per year to keep it ad-free. They don't do it because they'd rather not antagonize Google, a company wielding global power, otherwise they'd love to.
42. xur17 ◴[] No.44502828{5}[source]
How do banks do this?
43. TrackerFF ◴[] No.44502843[source]
As we have all learned, ad and subscription models aren't mutually exclusive. You can still get ads while paying for a subscription.

In fact, I don't believe the ad model would have gone away if everyone started paying for a subscription. The bottom tier would still be filled with ads.

Ideally, the market would solve this. The companies that are pushing annoying would lose customers to the companies that don't. But since we don't live in a ideal world, I honestly think regulations would be the only way. Something like "If a customer pays for subscription in any way, you can't show ads" - and then let the companies put a realistic price to their subscription tiers, which makes it worthwhile for them.

replies(1): >>44503184 #
44. bix6 ◴[] No.44502875{4}[source]
Your ISP and device manufacturers are still tracking you though?
replies(2): >>44503018 #>>44504373 #
45. portugalportuga ◴[] No.44502912[source]
money
46. dakiol ◴[] No.44502956[source]
I pay for 2 streaming services. They include annoying ads and the only way to avoid ads is, yeah to just pay more. No sense at all.
replies(1): >>44503305 #
47. sneak ◴[] No.44503006[source]
WhatsApp is surveillanceware from a surveillance company.

Anyone running into this problem willingly opted in to having surveillance software on their device. Meta’s track record is not secret.

48. fsflover ◴[] No.44503018{5}[source]
My phone's manufacturer doesn't track me. Sent from my Librem 5. Also I use Tor.
49. JohnFen ◴[] No.44503118[source]
It's become so terrible that I've given up on trying to secure Android anymore because it's become essentially impossible. This is the primary reason why my current smartphone is my last smartphone.
50. JohnFen ◴[] No.44503131[source]
It's totally possible to have the ad model without all the spying. It's just that marketers don't want that to be an option. They're all in on spying on us.
replies(1): >>44503447 #
51. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44503184{3}[source]
Ad subsidized subscriptions are cheaper.

I don't see what people find so grating about having a ad-load/cost spectrum. Maybe it's just confusion about the billing model.

replies(1): >>44504104 #
52. 93po ◴[] No.44503246{4}[source]
there are tons of free mastadon servers that cost nothing to end users and perfectly capture the functionality of twitter/facebook/whatever. yes there is root cost at its core, but its distributed across people who volunteer to pay for it on smaller scales becasue they enjoy running those services.

agreed its trickier when its gets to stuff like youtube, but piracy being free and widely spread is an example of how its possible, just not well developed right now

there's also options where it's pay-as-you-go with stuff like bitcoin (e.g. i pay $0.01 to watch a video) where it's effectively free but on large scale does cover the costs of infra

replies(1): >>44504140 #
53. drexlspivey ◴[] No.44503305{3}[source]
That makes perfect sense actually, you pay them half of the ad revenue to get rid of half the ads.
replies(1): >>44504942 #
54. dilyevsky ◴[] No.44503339{4}[source]
Even for software practice has shown few are actually willing to pay hundreds to thousands for a lifetime license. And you still need to purchase service packs, etc
55. IAmBroom ◴[] No.44503447{3}[source]
Yes, it's possible for marketers to act contrary to their own interests. Is that really your point?
replies(1): >>44509875 #
56. Macha ◴[] No.44503558[source]
As smart TVs, cable TV and streaming services show, even things that people generally pay for will get the ad model given enough time.
57. IncreasePosts ◴[] No.44503716{3}[source]
It seems like OP (bix6) is the one who needs to be lectured that their opinion isn't the only one that matters, not me. My point is that different people have different opinions. Just because someone thinks an app violates their privacy doesn't mean they get to unilaterally decide the app shouldn't exist.

If someone is concerned with their privacy by this feature, then they can just not use it. If someone is concerned that someone else might use this feature on private communications they had with the user, then that person misunderstands privacy and needs to realize that once they communicate their remarks to some other party, their ability to control their privacy to their own standards goes out the window generally, and not just with AI apps.

58. fransje26 ◴[] No.44503861[source]
> Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model

You make it sound as if those were the only two options available..

replies(1): >>44503993 #
59. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44503993{3}[source]
Right, I left out the donation model because less than 1% of users ever actually donate anything. It's hardly worth even considering for vast majority of businesses.
60. LinXitoW ◴[] No.44504099{3}[source]
I have no idea how in the world you think that could ever work in a general sense.

Things require labor. Labor costs money. Ergo, people giving you stuff require money, somehow. A tetris clone requires so little labour, that a well-off person with too much time (ergo labor) on their hands can give you that for free, but that's not scalable for 99% of important stuff.

Because capitalism, they also require more money, YoY, than last year, meaning they can't just make a steady stream of profit. They need more profit every year.

61. 9dev ◴[] No.44504104{4}[source]
They are cheaper until they aren’t. The neat thing about a plan that removes all ads is that you can just add the ads again later and introduce yet another, even more expensive plan that removes the ads again. Such fun! Much profit!
62. LinXitoW ◴[] No.44504112{3}[source]
You can pay not Google for services too. Most people don't, though. If ALL people that used free stuff (like gmail) suddenly started paying an appropriate amount to competitors, the problems may solve themselves. But people don't do that, because they're cheap or care more about their money than their data/privacy.

Now, all this is of course an inevitable consequence of capitalism, but that's not a conversation anyone herre seems ready for.

63. 9dev ◴[] No.44504140{5}[source]
As much as I despise ads, this is a pretty delusional take. Mastodon was only possible because of the hard work of open source contributors with day jobs that feed them. Running and accessing these instances requires all sorts of costly infrastructure that doesn’t materialise out of the blue. And finally, there may be a handful of geeks that enjoy paying for hosting, but that only works as long as it’s a niche community. Introduce 2 billion users, and it becomes just plain impossible.

And as you cite piracy as an alternative: that’s not "free" as in software, that’s "free" as in freeloading. Someone else is paying for it, just not you. That might work to fulfil your own needs, but it’s not a viable solution for business models.

replies(1): >>44523836 #
64. jazzyjackson ◴[] No.44504373{5}[source]
my telecom pinging my device (Sonim flip phone) location is quite different than my personality and political views being widely scrapeable.
65. callmeal ◴[] No.44504411[source]
> If people aren’t willing to pay for the products, these companies have figured out how to make the customers’ data the product.

This happens even when people pay for the products. See for instance the enshittification of streaming "ad free" services.

66. antod ◴[] No.44504906{6}[source]
There are two main reasons people hate modern ads. One is the annoyance/distraction, the other is all the myriad privacy issues.

Printed newspaper ads were only the former (and an easily skippable version compared to tv), while this topic is mainly about the latter.

replies(1): >>44505575 #
67. owebmaster ◴[] No.44504942{4}[source]
Perfect sense. Later, we pay to get ride of 90% of the ads to still have ads everywhere. Then 99% and on.
68. RiverCrochet ◴[] No.44505072{4}[source]
This might hold water in 1980 when neighbors talked to each other and coworkers often worked in the same building and didn't wear Bluetooth earbuds, but I don't know so much about now.
replies(1): >>44506704 #
69. PaulHoule ◴[] No.44505575{7}[source]
The personalization economy is pernicious because you have no idea what other people are being exposed to.

On the computer attached to my stereo YouTube offers recommendations for music videos from the likes of the Super Furry Animals [1], Kanye West [2], Brothers Johnson and such. Nice stuff, with solid support that I like it, never challenging, unlike the recommendations from my Plex server.

On another computer YouTube shows me videos about stereo equipment, sometimes video game music [3], and also of the genre "Why X sucks" where X could be private equity, "the economy", a movie studio, a video game studio, a fast food restaurant, a clothing brand, etc. I wonder why public sentiment about the economy is so bad despite inflation and unemployment numbers that aren't so bad and think, "How many people are watching these videos?"

Other people get nothing but blackpill incel hell.

Ben Bagdikian wrote a book The Information Machines in 1970 about how personalized news would be possible by 1980 that was quite prophetic and was influential to me when I found it almost 20 years ago. Only recently did I find The Effete Conspiracy, his next book, where he reveals how angry and bitter he was that the work that the media industry sponsored him to do for the RAND corporation was roundly rejected by media owners uninterested in investing in the future and introduced the true but unpopular model that newspapers have a left-wing bias because reporters are left-wing and a right-wing bias because the owners are right-wing.

[1] I get accused of being a furry but I'm not, really

[2] pre-Nazi

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk0A5uFoG3c

70. bonoboTP ◴[] No.44506704{5}[source]
Many people still interact and do things together in friend or acquaintance groups, even if not literal neighbors or coworkers.
71. ldsd ◴[] No.44507324{5}[source]
Don't banks also charge a monthly fee?
72. anton-c ◴[] No.44509845{3}[source]
I know I'm a pig-headed stick in the mud, but if more people refused to watch it on principle because of this, we would see some changes in business models. It should be easy to pay and remove all ads. But I can't expect everyone to feel the same as me. It is a dream though.

Since I can't remove ads by paying, I don't pay for a single subscription content service. The pirate sites have stuff the day it premiers, and there's no nonsense about shows split between services. Also the broken promise of being able to change language easily is actually available on those sites. I had to buy then return shin godzilla from prime video - 2 separate versions. Haven't bought or rented on there since. Also had more than one service saying my stuff is not hdcp compliant when it is. Buggy, laggy messes.

I know im a minority but there is money on the table I would gladly pay for a decent service.

replies(1): >>44509876 #
73. cindyllm ◴[] No.44509876{4}[source]
"Buddy"...that's...not...mud...
replies(1): >>44510129 #
74. JohnFen ◴[] No.44509875{4}[source]
My point is that the problem isn't really advertising, it's the spying.
75. anton-c ◴[] No.44509919{4}[source]
I believe the kids would call this "based"
76. anton-c ◴[] No.44510129{5}[source]
I'm stuck wherever I get all my content for free so it might be dirty but it's tough to beat

I must be missing a reference or something

77. 93po ◴[] No.44523836{6}[source]
i think you're missing the point. my point is that free software exists, and i recognize that the people who build it arent paying the bills with it. i'm saying there's no logistical reason why the vast majority of software people use cant be open source even with this being the case - it's capitalist pressures that suppress its visibility and therefore adoption.

my point with torrenting is that people offer their bandwidth for free without any real incentive to do so. if there was more systemic open source adoption and awareness of how systems like this work well when people make token donations (like with bandwidth) then i think we could be fine.