Tartas1995

joined 1 year ago
[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am not saying you are wrong, nor right, but I am wondering why you tell me/us that now, here.

Software is shipped with a license. There are licenses that are more or less ethical.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well there is a difference between disliking something and believing it is actively harmful. If you believe it is actively harmful for humans and society, it makes sense that you want to appeal to the society as a whole. Then you need to reason for why you feel the way you do. And there we go.

So, you think the argument of "they can't be a doctor as they are a swimmer" is a good argument? Obviously you can be 2 things.

But even then: The problem is that it is ignorant to Google's business model. Google is not simply hosting ads in their products as a form of revenue. Google makes 11% of it's revenue by tracking and hosting ads on other Plattforms. The person calling google an ad company, obviously makes the point that google has a major interest in ads and tracking. 11% of your total revenue is a lot of money to have motivation for having a major interest in ads and tracking. (Btw. This is ignoring the ad revenue that they make on their own properties like YouTube. Which also benefits from the tracking of users on other site. In other words, google has even more of an interest in it then just 11%, in fact 80% of it's revenue is ads and tracking. But I want to focus on the "what is different from a magazine" part)

In other words, you can be both. Magazines can be an ad company too. And highlighting Google's interest in ads because 80% of their revenue is from ads and 11% from providing ads to other sites, is hardly wrong if talking about Google's relationship with ads.

view more: ‹ prev next ›