> As a deliberately hyperbolic example: "We're not selling child slaves, we only offer a marketplace where clients can bid for the use of the labor of the child slaves."
Then have that argument, please. If your argument is that "privacy impacts of advertising are bad and here's why Google's business model doesn't improve that" then that is one thing. Telling people that Google is selling your data is a lie.
The OP you're mad at did make that distinction. They stipulated that Google is not literally a data broker, but they sell access to your data in the form of targeted adverts and content.
Yet here you are with the "WELL AKSHUALLY..." brigade.
Do you work in bigtech?
I know what upthread said, I literally (literally!) quoted it in my post. What you are claiming is (again, using the words from upthread post) categorically wrong. Google does not sell "access to" anyone's data[1]. Period. And if you genuinely believe you do I invite you to cite otherwise.
[1] I do note that you're the one caveating here, by trying to qualify "access" meaning "targeted adverts and content", which needless to say is not actually access to the data. Extensive attempts have been made over the years to try to deanonymize the ad feed (as often as not to get clicks at sites like this) and only a handful of holes have been found. There is no access to the data, period.
loading story #50238383
loading story #50236642