The content of 3rd party websites is the merchandise. Users are users. Just because it's financed by ads doesn't mean they're not interested in your experience. Facebook currently experiences how problematic declining user engagement can be. If Google search quality ever drops below that of others (Bing, Yandex), they'd be in real trouble. Their superior search is the only reason they make all that money.

I get that some are dissatisfied by "paying" with ads. But the alternative would be a paid-for search engine. Not only would that potentially exclude some, it would also make it harder to access search for people from low-income countries. Currently, US and Europe subsidise operations for money other areas, allowing them to get the same search experience. That'd change with a paid-for model.

> Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise.

Like Wikipedia, right?

Exactly. The number of wikipedia users is used when soliciting for donations. Donators and wikipedia users probably have some overlap, but that's also true of Google Search users and advertisers..

Right, which shows that the notion that "you're the product" is stretched so far to fit this idiotic platitude that it's more or less meaningless.

Wikipedia is run by non-profit organization.

jokes on you, I pay them monthly.