Skip to main content

User Expectations for Free Services

"Google, you have no right to track my searches!"

How many people have been saying that, especially since the whole thing with AOL "leaking" those users' search records? "Leak" nothing, they released them carefully as an opportunity for research, and we did nothing but attack them. They could have sold them, names and personal billing information included, without ever telling us a thing. What they did was perfectly within their bounds, just read your agreement with them.

Google seems to almost get more cruft about the whole thing than AOL. Maybe people just can't get surprised when they think they see something a company they never liked doing something they disagree with. People want to love Google, so they will get defensive about them almost to the point of taking it personally. How do you draw a line to the rights of users, when they do not even pay for the services being considered? Can we have any rights without being customers? If I asked you a question, do I have some right to demand that you take that question to the grave?

We are throwing an ever increasing amount of information we consider our own into free services across thousands of miles over unsecured channels, and we expect some kind of privacy and set of rights about how that information is dealt with. We have more than search history to deal with, because we're starting to replace desktop office apps with websites to entrust with our unpublished novels and family finance records. We obviously have a large trust in the services, but why do you expect this? Do we even have a right to expect that trust, or are we just delusional?

I do not care if Google tracks every site I browse to, analyzes it, locates patterns, adjusts my searches accordingly, shows me adds based on my browsing habits, or anything else they might be doing with the information. They are an ad driven company. They make money on advertisement clicks and I won't click on something I don't want to buy, so they have to do everything with getting advertisements in my face that I actually want to click, and that means it must be something I'm actually interested in (why else would I click?), so I'm getting as much out of it as they are. Google makes a quarter, and I finally found that great flatscreen TV deal that saves me a grand. Who is the winner here, and all I had to do was drop my pretension notions and enjoy a free service for its hidden cost: a little anonymous (outside Google) exposure and a few pixels of screen on the result pages. Wow, I am so winning in this relationship.

Amazon has been tracking your use of their site for years and doing amazing things with the way they cater to individual users, and there has been little fuss about it. No one complains, because they are too busy watching the movies Amazon suggested they buy. We have rejected the advertising the drives the economy for decades, but when it starts to actually be things we want to buy, do we even see an advertisement, or just a cool new album by your favorite artist? Advertising is meant to convince you to buy some product, and the best way to convince you is to find you already wanting to buy what they have to sell. You can't convince someone who doesn't want or need a product very well, you can just annoy them. That means getting rid of useless advertising is great for the consumer, and I welcome my personally tailored advertising.

Now, if only I could figure out why these amazing, personally specific advertisements were trying to sell outdoor equipment on my programming blog.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…