• crapwittyname
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.
    • Demuniac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • steltek@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your snark was actually closer to the mark than you think.

            Let’s say YouTube vanished overnight, what would the impact be? Sarcasm might suggest “we’d all be more productive” but let’s take a deeper look.

            1. A lot of free courses (or parts thereof) would vanish. (A key resource for poorer learners)

            2. Most modern tech repair guides would be gone (no machine breakdowns, no guides on fixing errors on old hardware)

            3. A lot of people’s voices would be silenced (YouTube is an awful platform, but for some people it’s one of the only ones they have)

            Seems to me, it would do a lot of public harm. Probably more harm than removing a freeway or closing a fire station.

            As for letting Google “play by a different rulebook”, it does so already. The OP has indicated that they’re undertaking an action in an illegal way, and yet no-one much cares to stop them. Yes, they could do the same thing via legal channels, but that’s rather like suggesting there is no difference between threats of violence vs taking someone to court when trying to collect money.

            Would you grant an insurance company similar legal indemnity? How would you feel about your local barber peeking in your window and selling what they see? Google has long played by a different rulebook, and thus different expectations are held.

            • shrugal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your arguments would only work if you’d argue for breaking up or nationalizing YouTube.

              As long as they are a for-profit company you can’t deny them the right to legally earn money the way they see fit, doesn’t matter how big they are or what other revenue streams they have. Forcing them to offer a service for free is nonsense, and attacking them on a technicality that is probably easily circumvented is just a waste of everybody’s time and money imo.

              If we really want to do something about this then we have to break their monopoly, same as any other huge company that’s f*cking with consumers.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • kirk781@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

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

      • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Demuniac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Obi@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            YouTube is a lot more than just entertainment. Not trying to argue your overall point just pointing that out.

          • gian @lemmy.grys.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free?

            Obviously not, but there is nothing to stop Google from making Youtube a paid service and drop that charade about adblockers.

            • Demuniac@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Google’s main source of income is ads across the board, so fighting adblockers is certainly in their best interest

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                And users blocking all ads as long as Google is illegally tracking their online movement is in their best interest as well.

              • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fine. But it need to fight by the rules.

                It is not up to discussion: Youtube want to serve video to EU user ? They need to follow EU rules. If the rule says that adblocker detection technologies (or attempt) are illegal Youtube has no really a say in it.

                • Demuniac@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Hell yeah they should, I’m not disputing that, but there’s so many here pretending like it’s somehow unethical for Google to fight against ad blockers, and I am arguing that.

                  • gian @lemmy.grys.it
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It it not unethical what they are doing but how they are doing it. Not to mention against the law.

                • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But to be clear, that is not what the EU law being cited here says. It says something that may be interpreted as it. I hope that is how it gets interpreted. But that is not what it says.

      • gian @lemmy.grys.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Demuniac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it is not an exchange of data for access to the website. The website is provided completely free, and the data collection is the small print. A normal contract exchanges one thing for another, then the details are in the fine print. If it were an exchange of data for access, then the amount of data they collect would be proportional.

            • Demuniac@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why? Who made the rules about exchanging data? And it is an exchange of data for a service, it’s just not as obvious as you might want it to be. But nothing comes for free.

              Hey I’m not saying I like the big company ethic scathing that’s been going on around the world, but it is how our society currently works.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why? Who made the rules about exchanging data?

                There’s a whole area of legislation called contract law. An exchange of value requires consideration, ie payment. They invite you in for free, then take your data without consideration. In particular, you only have use of the website while you visit it and so long as they host it in that current form, but they claim rights to your data in perpetuity. They have no obligation to continue hosting the website, because that is a separate arrangement to the data collection.

                It’s how things have been going so far, but the law always takes a long time to catch up with new innovation. The law is not always right or comprehensive, which is why it has a facility to be changed. The GDPR cookie splash screen was the first real attempt at this, it falls well short but if everything works as it should then further laws should come.

                Frankly though, I think what should happen is that businesses should be allowed to continue collecting data as they are, but their raw dataset should be publicly available for a small nominal fee. This way Google et al can still keep their proprietary data processing magic to themselves, but everyone can make use of the datasets and drive competition. It also gives people a reasonable opportunity to actually see their data, and act accordingly.

                Businesses will complain about giving away “their” data, but the reality is that the data belongs to the users and the business merely has a licence. The cat is already out of the bag and it’s not practicable to put it back in, so the best choice is to embrace it openly.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

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

        • Klear@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Marketing in general is a reason we live in a consumer society.

            The only reason marketing exist is to trick our brains into buying stuff we do not need.

            I’d say ban all of it. The world would be better off.

        • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            they are taking information from your browser without getting your permission first, to use that information against you.

            • rchive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              They’d argue that you going to their page which you know is sustained by ads is consent enough to check whether you’re using ad block. It’s an implicit thing, like how when you go to a restaurant you’re implying that you’re going to pay the bill afterward. You can’t eat and then leave saying, “well technically I never explicitly agreed to pay for this meal, it’s your fault for not asking before serving me.”

            • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They’re taking information from the page they served you and runs the code they wrote to read the page they served you to ensure what they served you is actually what you’re seeing

              You’re accessing the site, you’re continuing to use the site, you are implicitly agreeing to allow the code they run to modify the page you’re on

              I fail to see how it specifically being used to check that ads are displaying is any different from code running normally in your browser to change the page without refreshing the page entirely

              More importantly and actually on subject: how is this immoral? What moral code are they breaking here? You can argue legal semantics, but legality is not morality. You made a moral argument. How is this immoral?

              • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Google is tracking you on every website that has a “share to Google” icon.

                Which means Google has your entire browser history, even if you use Firefox.

                If it was just on their own websites, nobody would be complaining.

                • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  This is specifically about YouTube and YouTube specifically detecting adblock on YouTube.

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am not obligated to sit dutifully with the volume up when ads play on my tv.

              Nor am I obligated to allow ads to load within my browser.

              They send the data they want me to display, down to every element on the page. It is fully within my rights to choose which elements are allowed to load on my computer.

              And I wont be fuckin guilt tripped that the billion dollar company will make a fraction of another billion less dollars this quarter over my decisions to do so.

              • online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t the typical terms of service or privacy policy even mention that you, as a user, have the power to reject tracking cookies, tracking pixels, etc. via your browser configuration and third party tools? As far as I know, the YouTube ToS and Privacy Policy also mention these things. I just tried to read it but they seem to have broken it up into a sprawling multi-site multi-page document where I can’t find the legalese to ctrl+f and pore over.

                Can anyone find these documents, so I can read through them please?

                Edit:

                I found it: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en#intro

                There are other ways to control the information Google collects whether or not you’re signed in to a Google Account, including:

                • Browser settings: For example, you can configure your browser to indicate when Google has set a cookie in your browser. You can also configure your browser to block all cookies from a specific domain or all domains. But remember that our services rely on cookies to function properly, for things like remembering your language preferences.
                • Device-level settings: Your device may have controls that determine what information we collect. For example, you can modify location settings on your Android device.
                • 9bananas@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  TOS are neither the law, nor are they vetted for legality by anyone working in law enforcement.

                  TOS very often contain straight up illegal clauses; they are largely meaningless.