Latest Authors United letter to Amazon Board

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Could that possibly be because nobody was attempting to argue with you?

(Personally, I don't consider it a problem. It is exactly what they should be doing, considering the business they are in, and I do not fault them for it, and I wish them much luck. It would be different if there was Anyone On The Planet* who didn't know this.)

All DuckieTigger said was that in your zeal to castigate Google, you seem to be forgetting that Google is multiple things, and not all Google products are evil even by your standards.

* -- not including people too stupid to be allowed on a computer, who coincidentally don't really get the idea of anything other than some pretty pictures. I heard there was still one or two of these people around, somewhere.

Classic strawman. I never claimed either thing. I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer.

[DiapDealer]

Classic tempus fugit. There's no way that red herring gets by a true scotsman. Caveat emptor ad hominem est. Five minute major for farcical fallacy flaunting.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Classic strawman. I never claimed either thing. I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer.

You're right, you absolutely did not say that all Google products are a homogeneous mold to milk your personal information for ads:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Google doesn't charge for the android operating system.

http://9to5google.com/2014/01/23/goo...bile-services/

Google doesn't do this out of the kindness of their corporate heart, they do it to provide more eyeballs for their various ad platforms. I repeat, if you aren't paying for a service you are getting, you aren't the customer, you are the product. In this case, you are the reason that Google can charge their advertisers what they charge them.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Android doesn't have any ads. It is the apps on the playstore that have ads. Google is selling those apps to the android user. Even if they sell it for free, it is still a sale. Most apps you can opt out of the ads by paying money for the ad free version. Part of that money the customer pays goes to Google as comission.

So no, I disagree with your insistence to not calling android users customers.

And you absolutely did not imply that Google selling ads was a problem:

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Methinks that you don't understand exactly how Google does ads. Their main thing is by capturing as much information about the users as possible, they allow very precisely directed ads. But hey, if it doesn't bother you fine. If you wish to consider yourself the customer, that's fine. So, what's the 1-800 number for issues with Goggle search? Hum, that's odd, I can't find the 1-800 number for Google maps or gmail either. How odd.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

By saying providing search for free "it isn't because of their desire not to be evil"
you are trying to imply that Google is evil? Nice try in pushing your evil agenda and still have deniability since you didn't say it outright. Two negatives don't make a right, and yada yada. The ads in Google Search are done so nicely and unobtrusive that it is no wonder they are the best in advertising. Compare that to all those ad-riddled webpages that require a higher skill level just to navigate around the ads.

And you absolutely have not been highly confrontational every time someone suggests that maybe, just maybe:

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Search and Maps? Really? You are fixiated on the services that are either ads themselves or free for the user, financed by the ads. I am mildly aware that Google is the largest advertisement company.

and that we cheerfully accept that; you seem to feel the bizarre need to point out in excruciating detail what we already know,for absolutely no goal whatsoever... insomuch as you maintain "I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer." -- well then, who are you saying it TO???

This seems to be a general trend with you, belaboring a point that no one ever disagreed with, as a form of deniability against having to actually defend your insinuations.

Just to be totally clear:
You told us to beware, "you are the product, not the customer",
we told you "thanks, but we've known that since like forever, and Google is still our best buddy" because their business model is to give us what we want and charge us the data about that want,
you keep on telling it to us, belaboring the point,
and it ISN'T because you think Google is , no matter how much that sounds like what you are insinuating, because you never said so straight out.
Right?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insinuate
Take a look at number three.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Classic strawman. I never claimed either thing. I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer.

I told you so already that you would do that. Of course you did not say it in those exact words. Even you are smart enough to not flat out tell a lie.

Were you to say that every paying (with money) customer of Google either places an ad or pays for information to place an ad, then you would have gone into the territory of telling lies.

As it is you like to hear yourself say "strawman" a lot, so you write hoping to use it against someone. Perfectly well knowing it was a setup (by you).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You're right, you absolutely did not say that all Google products are a homogeneous mold to milk your personal information for ads:





And you absolutely did not imply that Google selling ads was a problem:





And you absolutely have not been highly confrontational every time someone suggests that maybe, just maybe:



and that we cheerfully accept that; you seem to feel the bizarre need to point out in excruciating detail what we already know,for absolutely no goal whatsoever... insomuch as you maintain "I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer." -- well then, who are you saying it TO???

This seems to be a general trend with you, belaboring a point that no one ever disagreed with, as a form of deniability against having to actually defend your insinuations.

Just to be totally clear:
You told us to beware, "you are the product, not the customer",
we told you "thanks, but we've known that since like forever, and Google is still our best buddy" because their business model is to give us what we want and charge us the data about that want,
you keep on telling it to us, belaboring the point,
and it ISN'T because you think Google is , no matter how much that sounds like what you are insinuating, because you never said so straight out.
Right?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insinuate
Take a look at number three.

I see, so quoting someone else claiming I said something, means I must have said something. Sigh, some things just don't seem to change. Some people just seem to love the strawman argument, and just can't stand it when it's pointed out what they are doing. Your defense is that you imagined that is what I must have meant, ergo, that is what I meant? Well, I can't be responsible for your imagination, but I am certainly the only correct source for what I meant, no matter how much you pound the figurative table about it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I see, so quoting someone else claiming I said something, means I must have said something. Sigh, some things just don't seem to change. Some people just seem to love the strawman argument, and just can't stand it when it's pointed out what they are doing. Your defense is that you imagined that is what I must have meant, ergo, that is what I meant? Well, I can't be responsible for your imagination, but I am certainly the only correct source for what I meant, no matter how much you pound the figurative table about it.

Actually, two people came to the separate conclusion that you were insinuating something, and agree with each others' logic.

But of course, we can go all day arguing over the difference between someone insinuating something while maintaining plausible deniability, versus the accusation of such via a strawman argument.
At the end of the day, either spin is just as un/reasonable.
You do love your strawman accusations, so I am hardly surprised to see another.

Perhaps you can do your part by resolving to no longer make it so darned easy to misinterpret/misrepresent what you say, whether deliberately or by accident.

Or we can continue to go in circles, of course.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, I can't be responsible for your imagination, but I am certainly the only correct source for what I meant, no matter how much you pound the figurative table about it.

I think one of my favourite passages from Alice in Wonderland is instructive here:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

Since no one is "to be master" precision is important. And when. as seems to happen frequently, you claim to be misquoted, a little bit of grace in pointing out what you meant to convey would be nice (though not of course compulsory).

What you apparently meant to say, according to your own later post, is that:

"if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer."

I don't agree with this statement, but it is pointless to get into an argument about it. It obviously derives any semblance of coherence from this particular situation where Google sells the data it gathers, and can not stand as a general principle. Nevertheless, what is the relevance of being a "customer" or a "product"? Since you have not elaborated on this point, I can only guess, and do so at the peril of your future "strawman" allegation if my guess is not to your liking.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your statement is correct (though it is not). What difference does it make? Are you in fact implying that Google does not treat you as well as it would a customer? If so, in what ways? What point or points are you trying to make?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I think one of my favourite passages from Alice in Wonderland is instructive here:



Since no one is "to be master" precision is important. And when. as seems to happen frequently, you claim to be misquoted, a little bit of grace in pointing out what you meant to convey would be nice (though not of course compulsory).

What you apparently meant to say, according to your own later post, is that:

"if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer."

I don't agree with this statement, but it is pointless to get into an argument about it. It obviously derives any semblance of coherence from this particular situation where Google sells the data it gathers, and can not stand as a general principle. Nevertheless, what is the relevance of being a "customer" or a "product"? Since you have not elaborated on this point, I can only guess, and do so at the peril of your future "strawman" allegation if my guess is not to your liking.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your statement is correct (though it is not). What difference does it make? Are you in fact implying that Google does not treat you as well as it would a customer? If so, in what ways? What point or points are you trying to make?

What difference does it make? Go back and look at where I originally said it.

"Amazon and Google are good for Amazon and Google. One thing to remember with Google, if you aren't paying for something, then you aren't the customer, you are the product. Google's customers are their advertisers, not the people who use Google. That's why they consistently try to force people to log in. It makes it easier for Google to track you and sell more detailed info to their consumers, i.e. the advertisers. "

It's simply a statement which explains certain behavior by Google. There is much to like about Google, but I think that it is a mistake to think that Google, Amazon, Apple or any other large corporation does something out of the kindness of their heart. Many of Google's free apps come from various employee's Friday projects. Google has/had Friday projects not because it allows them to provide cool free apps, but rather because it allows them to keep their more creative programmers. The cool free apps is just a side benefit. Of course, it also gains them other non tangible things that benefits Google as a whole. Google is neither evil, nor good, they are simply a large corporation that has a certain culture which many people happen to like.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There is much to like about Google, but I think that it is a mistake to think that Google, Amazon, Apple or any other large corporation does something out of the kindness of their heart. Many of Google's free apps come from various employee's Friday projects. Google has/had Friday projects not because it allows them to provide cool free apps, but rather because it allows them to keep their more creative programmers. The cool free apps is just a side benefit. Of course, it also gains them other non tangible things that benefits Google as a whole. Google is neither evil, nor good, they are simply a large corporation that has a certain culture which many people happen to like.

For someone who so often calls out a strawman, you do it yourself nonstop. Nobody ever said that amazon or google do something out of kindness. Just because some people believe, that in this situation their interest and that of amazon go hand in hand, it does not follow that both have the same motivation, do something just for the other or being on the same side on other issues.

[darryl]

@pwalker8. I agree with your view that "it is a mistake to think that Google, Amazon, Apple or any other large corporation does something out of the kindness of their heart." I have said as much in my own past posts. Further, I think that most people here are realistic enough to share this view. With respect, this is not what I asked you.

You made the statement in your post @211 that "I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer". After accepting your statement for the sake of argument only I concluded my post $217 with the questions:

"What difference does it make? Are you in fact implying that Google does not treat you as well as it would a customer? If so, in what ways? What point or points are you trying to make?"

If your post $218 provides answers to the questions I posed then I fail to see them.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. I agree with your view that "it is a mistake to think that Google, Amazon, Apple or any other large corporation does something out of the kindness of their heart." I have said as much in my own past posts. Further, I think that most people here are realistic enough to share this view. With respect, this is not what I asked you.

You made the statement in your post @211 that "I simply said that if you are not paying for something, then you are the product, not the customer". After accepting your statement for the sake of argument only I concluded my post $217 with the questions:

"What difference does it make? Are you in fact implying that Google does not treat you as well as it would a customer? If so, in what ways? What point or points are you trying to make?"

If your post $218 provides answers to the questions I posed then I fail to see them.

My original comment, that I quoted was in response to the post that said
"
...
Who are you kidding? Amazon and Google ARE good for their customers. They are that good that enough people hate them for being so good. Both having so many customers, the amount of the ones unhappy is huge, but the amount of happy customers is even bigger.
..."

I was telling Duckytigger that he was not the customer.

It's helpful if you consider the context of a comment before going into full attack mode or hurl yourself at a conclusion about that comment.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My original comment, that I quoted was in response to the post that said
"
...
Who are you kidding? Amazon and Google ARE good for their customers. They are that good that enough people hate them for being so good. Both having so many customers, the amount of the ones unhappy is huge, but the amount of happy customers is even bigger.
..."

I was telling Duckytigger that he was not the customer.

It's helpful if you consider the context of a comment before going into full attack mode or hurl yourself at a conclusion about that comment.

And DuckieTigger said, politely, that Android users are indeed Google customers, even accepting your claim for the sake of argument.

And you ignored that and continued on your rant about ads, which is where the attacks and "hurl[ing] at a conclusion" started.

This is beside the fact that multiple people (at least me and darryl) would like to know:

"What difference does it make? Are you in fact implying that Google does not treat you as well as it would a customer? If so, in what ways? What point or points are you trying to make?"

Can you honestly tell yourself you were telling Duckie anything he didn't already know? If not...

If a product is a customer by another name, does it smell any less sweet?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My original comment, that I quoted was in response to the post that said
"
...
Who are you kidding? Amazon and Google ARE good for their customers. They are that good that enough people hate them for being so good. Both having so many customers, the amount of the ones unhappy is huge, but the amount of happy customers is even bigger.
..."

I was telling Duckytigger that he was not the customer.

It's helpful if you consider the context of a comment before going into full attack mode or hurl yourself at a conclusion about that comment.

My purpose is not to attack you, but I admit to being a little frustrated because the distinction you have made is currently meaningless, and you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid elaborating. Why tell Duckie he is not the customer if it doesn't make any difference? In the context above, you are replying to a quote that said, amongst other things, that Google is good for its customers. The obvious implication of saying Duckie is not a customer is that Google is not good for Duckie or indeed for other "non-customers" of Google's free services. All I am asking is why not?

[DuckieTigger]

Yes, I would like to know that as well. I did go to great lengths in trying to establish that I am indeed a customer. Even in the very weird view of money transforming me magically from product to customer. And yes, I am paying for some android apps. Why? I am not bothered by the ads that much, but sometimes the ad-free version has extra features.

[darryl]

@DuckieTigger. You are indeed a customer of Google, as am I and probably everyone else on this forum, at least in my view. pwalker8 obliquely raises some issues which could be worth discussing in their own thread, namely the consequences of Google's model of accepting payment in the form of information, and how they differ from the usual transaction where money changes hands. For what it is worth, however, I don't see that Google treats its search customers differently in any way which is material to this discussion, though I can think of some arguments to the contrary. As pwalker8 makes the distinction it would seem he does think there are differences in treatment which are material. I am simply curious what he believes these differences may be.