Then by "patently false" you could only have been referring to my respect for you since everything before that was demonstrably true and provable by simply reading what we each wrote.
Carry on then since respect can't be proven and just has to be accepted on faith.
So you're still saying that Google in no way distributes data, even after being giving several examples of what constitutes data in order to form a baseline for a rational discussion?
So you're still saying that Google in no way distributes data, even after being giving several examples of what constitutes data in order to form a baseline for a rational discussion?
Soli, are you still confused by what I've repeatedly said? Google does not sell data (nor does Apple). As you're so presumably sure that they do it's easy-peesy to prove me wrong: Point to where we can buy that data from them. Then we can be done with this frustrating exercise.
For the last time: iTunes Store, App Store, iBookstore, YouTube, Google Play, countless others
Well... umm. . . OK then. *We can all go to iTunes and buy user data. . . Then drop by Google Play for another heapin' helpin". Gotcha. :err: I think I'll just read some other thread, maybe check back in tomorrow when the real Soli shows up.
*I hope Microsoft, Samsung and Yahoo are paying attention. They can claim clean hands by just opening an iTunes and Google account to buy the user data from them.
Well... umm. . . OK then. *We can all go to iTunes and buy user data. . . Then drop by Google Play for another heapin' helpin". Gotcha. :err: I think I'll just read some other thread, maybe check back in tomorrow when the real Soli shows up.
*I hope Microsoft, Samsung and Yahoo are paying attention. They can claim clean hands by just opening an iTunes and Google account to buy the user data from them.
Now you're qualifying it as user data, when I've been replying to your comments that listed only data along with a patently false comment that Google doesn't sell 'data.'
Now, do you want to start again on what Google actually sells to advertisers by utilizing our user data?
Now you're qualifying it as user data, when I've been replying to your comments that listed only data along with a patently false comment that Google doesn't sell 'data.'
Then read the previous post again and follow the quotes. I'm beginning to wonder if this is the real Solipsism or instead another poser like we had a few weeks back. You're not making sense.
Google is selling data sets. That's not even disputable, and you have been and are using semantics to obscure the definition to bolster Google's purity.
That data set is defined by algorithms and "analytics"; it is available to purchase via bid as AdWords, and likely through other means. The buyer is purchasing a very specific demographic; the more specific keywords, the better the possibility of connection with a buyer, but, the higher the cost per impression.
A huge number of data sets are available at any time. This is Google's primary income; selling data sets defined as keywords to advertisers. My data is intermixed among all the other data, but none is available raw; it is only available as an anonymized data set.
Buying and selling advertising isn't my business; it seems to be important to you. Google's purity isn't my business either. They sell data sets to advertisers. It isn't necessary for you to constantly defend their purity through semantics.
Get me out of it? Why didn't it "get me out it" 3 days ago when I made the same comment on post 60?
Gatorguy has been trying, since I've been here anyway, to steer readers to his purity definition of Google, which is that they don't sell data.
It's interesting that both Apple and Facebook want to sell anonymized data sets to advertisers as well, but within their "walled gardens", to keep the riff raff out and also to have at least some control over the user experience with advertisers. I'm guessing that it is a little late for Google and it's cloners to change stripes. Looks like Search is the next battleground; who would have thought?
Comments
So you're still saying that Google in no way distributes data, even after being giving several examples of what constitutes data in order to form a baseline for a rational discussion?
For the last time: iTunes Store, App Store, iBookstore, YouTube, Google Play, countless others
*I hope Microsoft, Samsung and Yahoo are paying attention. They can claim clean hands by just opening an iTunes and Google account to buy the user data from them.
Now you're qualifying it as user data, when I've been replying to your comments that listed only data along with a patently false comment that Google doesn't sell 'data.'
Now, do you want to start again on what Google actually sells to advertisers by utilizing our user data?
Get me out of it? Why didn't it "get me out it" 3 days ago when I made the same comment on post 60?
Newly found clarity of course.
Then read the previous post again and follow the quotes. I'm beginning to wonder if this is the real Solipsism or instead another poser like we had a few weeks back. You're not making sense.
Google is selling data sets. That's not even disputable, and you have been and are using semantics to obscure the definition to bolster Google's purity.
That data set is defined by algorithms and "analytics"; it is available to purchase via bid as AdWords, and likely through other means. The buyer is purchasing a very specific demographic; the more specific keywords, the better the possibility of connection with a buyer, but, the higher the cost per impression.
A huge number of data sets are available at any time. This is Google's primary income; selling data sets defined as keywords to advertisers. My data is intermixed among all the other data, but none is available raw; it is only available as an anonymized data set.
Buying and selling advertising isn't my business; it seems to be important to you. Google's purity isn't my business either. They sell data sets to advertisers. It isn't necessary for you to constantly defend their purity through semantics.
Get me out of it? Why didn't it "get me out it" 3 days ago when I made the same comment on post 60?
Gatorguy has been trying, since I've been here anyway, to steer readers to his purity definition of Google, which is that they don't sell data.
It's interesting that both Apple and Facebook want to sell anonymized data sets to advertisers as well, but within their "walled gardens", to keep the riff raff out and also to have at least some control over the user experience with advertisers. I'm guessing that it is a little late for Google and it's cloners to change stripes. Looks like Search is the next battleground; who would have thought?