Well the saying goes - if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer.

People using twitter or google or facebook are not clients because they aren't paying. The clients are the people who pay those companies for valuable information and advertising space.

The saying is full of crock - it presents a false dichotomy. You might pay and still be a product. You pay for cable TV but they sell you to advertisers.

> You pay for cable TV but they sell you to advertisers.

That's not quite right. You pay your cable provider for television service. The cable provider pays networks for their content (the networks are the "suppliers" in this case). Some of those networks also collect payment from advertisers, but that advertising revenue probably wouldn't go to the cable company.

Just because it is a saying, doesn't mean it is true. There are some things that are free (as in beer) and you are still not the product. In the case where companies are selling your data, you are both, whether or not you pay for it. The companies still need to work hard to retain you.

Just a nit-pick: "you are the product, not the customer". I think a "consumer" can be either. Further complicating the terminology, many sites where you're the product (and some where you're the customer) rely on you to actually be a producer of content as well.

> if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer.

That explains all of the ads I see on GNU Emacs.

/s

You're intended to be free labor, working to improve their software.