It is basically a condom for the Internet. It makes maintenance for family computers much easier.
/s
I was using the Internet Junkbuster (and later: Privoxy) in the mid-90s, many years before that. https://web.archive.org/web/19961222061917/http://www.junkbu...
Of course, back then you could just disable javascript in your web browser to protect yourself from malicious sites and annyances, and practically all sites would work perfectly fine.
Google's other big line of business is shaking down businesses for cash by selling the top result for someone's own brand name unless they're paid for protection.
I want real opinions written by real people with no conflict of interest. People who are't getting paid by the corporation.
But the incentives for advertising remain the same, so another similar competitor with similar evilness would emerge to replace them.
I don’t believe the problem is “Google is evil”.
I think the problem is that the incentives create evil, and there is little effective effort (that I have seen) to fix Google’s incentives through legislation or other means.
I worry that many other major companies we interact with are heading down the same path.
TVs are one canary warning us.
Another example: Apple seems to be getting keener on advertising revenue, and I’m not sure that opposing incentives (within Apple or by their customers) are strong enough to overcome the financial temptation. That temptation leads to eventual sin (to use a religious metaphor!) Apple already commits egregious harm through many kinds of “free” apps.
The argument for ad blockers is that ads are annoying and trackers are intrusive, not that people should avoid all interaction with any commercial entities ever, even when they're literally looking to buy something.
(And no, the company paying Google for ads so their website appears in the results for a particular search term is not inherently more dishonest than them paying an SEO consultant to achieve the same thing 'organically'...)
This isn't a faithful interpretation of the argument. Most people don't use Google to look for things to buy. They use it to find accurate information.
If you think I'm trolling, report me. If dang tells me to stop, I will respect his decision. Don't accuse me of "baiting" otherwise. This isn't 4chan.
That's maybe 10% of what advertising does. Everyone on the planet is well aware that Coke is a carbonated beverage.
Advertising is pretty gross.
And maybe that wasn't always the case, and maybe it's also using advertising in place of another word, but that's where it's ended up in my understanding of the world.
It's become lifestyle sales, of you buy this, you'll be this. They use that technique just about everywhere now. Used to be just cars and fashion. Like someone else said, emotional manipulation, narcissistic [my add].
Most people don't think with logic, but with emotions, so they're easy targets. Which makes me sad, because frankly no one deserves to get scammed and lied to.
I'm the type of person to appreciate direct and frank discussion. Many don't like this, especially people having power ambitions.
And yet it tries do "educate" the public about why they should buy whatever product or service they're offering. Lies and half-truths are common.
(Here's a few random recent examples: https://redd.it/xxkx5s https://redd.it/vvrxko https://redd.it/xwkky8 https://redd.it/vuqu1r)
Ad networks and content providers get up in arms over widespread ad blocking but then allow stuff like this through.