You missed my point. If you’re blocking ads/trackers, and refusing to pay for premium? Then they aren’t making money off of you. You’re consuming their resources for free. Regardless of your feelings on ads/tracking being invasive, the fact of the matter is that’s how the website makes money. So when you eliminate those, you eliminate any reason for them to pander to your wants. The only potential benefit to keeping you around would be to help drive engagement. But since they’ve run all the competition out of business, they don’t need to worry about that because they don’t need engagement from the 1% of users who still try to block ads.
you’re wrong, actually. Google sells ads, not data. They USE data to target ads which is where the big bucks are. If you block ads, all the data in the world wouldn’t allow them to profit. So by blocking ads you are preventing Google from collecting any revenue from your participation
We can agree to disagree about this. I don’t think my obligation is to maximize my ARPU for Google. And given how malignant they are it’s now my mission to maliciously minimize my value to them. Maybe we are just on different wavelengths. Enjoy your Google services.
Sure, but I think you were being intentionally misleading by disputing that Google isn’t making money off of you if block ads, despite the fact that that person was correct.
I go to a store, I see a nice shirt, I don’t buy it, but I tell a friend about the shirt and he goes to buy it. Did the store make money off of me?
I watch a YouTube video and share it with a friend. That friend watches it and consumes ads (because my friend is a moron, sure). Did Google make money off of me?
But that wasn’t the point your were making. You were saying that the data has value in relation to your point, not the exposure. The implication you were making was that Google could still profit off the data
You missed my point. If you’re blocking ads/trackers, and refusing to pay for premium? Then they aren’t making money off of you. You’re consuming their resources for free. Regardless of your feelings on ads/tracking being invasive, the fact of the matter is that’s how the website makes money. So when you eliminate those, you eliminate any reason for them to pander to your wants. The only potential benefit to keeping you around would be to help drive engagement. But since they’ve run all the competition out of business, they don’t need to worry about that because they don’t need engagement from the 1% of users who still try to block ads.
It has nothing to do with feelings. The data they track has a value. You’re claiming they “aren’t making money off of you”. They are.
Again, you missed my point. If you’re blocking those ads and trackers, they have no data from you and therefore you have no value to them.
Let’s pause and pretend that’s true.
….Ahhh. 😃 if only.
you’re wrong, actually. Google sells ads, not data. They USE data to target ads which is where the big bucks are. If you block ads, all the data in the world wouldn’t allow them to profit. So by blocking ads you are preventing Google from collecting any revenue from your participation
I didn’t say they sell data I said that the data they track has a value. Try again
well it doesn’t have any value if it can’t be sold or used
We can agree to disagree about this. I don’t think my obligation is to maximize my ARPU for Google. And given how malignant they are it’s now my mission to maliciously minimize my value to them. Maybe we are just on different wavelengths. Enjoy your Google services.
Sure, but I think you were being intentionally misleading by disputing that Google isn’t making money off of you if block ads, despite the fact that that person was correct.
I go to a store, I see a nice shirt, I don’t buy it, but I tell a friend about the shirt and he goes to buy it. Did the store make money off of me?
I watch a YouTube video and share it with a friend. That friend watches it and consumes ads (because my friend is a moron, sure). Did Google make money off of me?
But that wasn’t the point your were making. You were saying that the data has value in relation to your point, not the exposure. The implication you were making was that Google could still profit off the data