[tali3sin]

For people who don't care about what IgnareAcademy had to say, or how I might respond to his... opinion, then please, skip past all the areas with "quotes" in them.

Originally Posted by IgnareAcademy

You lose. Telling someone he is a conspiracy nut is akin to the methods used in the USSR, Eastern Germany, China, Nazi Germany to intimidate people who would go as far as think that the minority of people ruling over the vast majority were not above criticism.
You talk like the perfect slave/citizen in a totalitarian society, like the fanboy of the corporations whose products/services you use.
Too much power in too few hands is dangerous for democracy.
Databases (google is building the hugest database in history) destroy democracy, as was revealed during the last US presidential election. I remember seeing how for example the Democratic party used the very precise files they had on the vast majority of US citizens to deliver targeted political messages when they went door-to-door to try to convince people to vote for Obama. This way, people were convinced to vote selfishly basing their decision on precisely targeted talking-points that targeted a couple of their interests.
A serious voter in a democratic society should instead decide himself which issues are the most important not only for his own good but also for the general interest, and what exactly must be done about those issues. And then analyze by himself the platforms of the candidates to find the right one, already during the primaries.
And serious candidates should encourage people to vote that way, not cynically target people with the help of soulless advertisers.
Instead too many voters are overwhelmed by marketing campaigns that reach deeper and deeper into their minds to manipulate them, for example by inflating out of proportion new emotionally-charged issues like gay marriage, or by repeating key words like "change" ad nauseam, because advertisers found by psychologically studying panels of voters, that pushing those issues/words into people's minds was an efficient way to get many people to vote for one candidate or another.

No sir, YOU lose.

You chose to focus on one sentence out of that user's entire post. And then to take their feelings about a corporation, and extend the entire thing into the bounds of political manipulation? Then you compare them to a range of... shall we say, non-democratic governments, AND compare them (this single person, and their random, commonly used phrase) to Nazi Germany? Incredibly harsh, and altogether unnecessary. Way to go off-topic, but hey, obviously I'm going to join you.

Databases destroy democracy.

Obviously the bigger the database the more destruction! Curious viewpoint, given that databases are used to count votes, compile important and beneficial information, run small businesses, track, attack and support the average person, run the website you're posting on, and you know, are generally useful in almost all sections of modern (and some rather old) societies.
Way to be a luddite.

people were convinced to vote selfishly basing their decision on precisely targeted talking-points that targeted a couple of their interests

What? People shouldn't vote selfishly? People shouldn't vote for the things that interest, and concern... themselves? Thus including their family, loved ones, the poor, whatever, if they are so concerned. That's kind of what democracy is about, voting for what you want to. Voting selfishly, even if that selfishness means voting, god forbid, against what might be best for someone else, is kind of what democracy is for.

A serious voter in a democratic society should instead decide himself which issues are the most important not only for his own good but also for the general interest

So ah, you're assuming that the average person, when presented with a couple of

talking-points

that were designed to be relevant to their interests, wouldn't be able to think outside of their own most basic desires, and consider what might be nice for the greater good, and whether or not those niceties fall inside their own needs and desires for the government, as a democratic voter? Who sounds like a cynic now?

serious candidates should encourage people to vote that way, not cynically target people with the help of soulless advertisers

Vote what way? For the things they want? Again with this foolishness! Why shouldn't people vote for what they want? Why shouldn't candidates advertise the issues they support, to the people they know will be most receptive to them? Are you not coming here to talk about ideas and devices you support, with people you know will be receptive to these ideas and devices?

If you're concerned by voters being

overwhelmed by marketing campaigns

, maybe you should take that up in some kind of political forum, or have a few stern words with the education department while hoping for the best for the next couple of generations.
Meanwhile, you can get back to the topics at hand - and so can I - this whole eBook business, without the absurd accusations and claims. You kind of sound like a conspiracy theorist :-p

-

Now that that's over with...

Alright, so Google might charge a bit more for a lesser service. That may seem like a bad thing up front, but another entry into the market, particularly from a company as big as the Big G, can only be a good thing. Competition breeds lower prices, generally. Or at least new technologies, and better services (in the long run).