>And the Soviets are a terrible example. Centrally planned economies of course destroy all individual incentives to accel or improve.
Which economy is not centrally planned? We have more and more central planning every year.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of central planning. It collapsed because everyone was lazy and stole shit from the factories. No productivity, no quality. People were drinking at work and were utterly incompetent. This is what happens when you remove the incentives for improvement. If you guarantee people they can eat, no questions asked, they just stop caring after 10-15 years. They just forget to care, this is the new reality for them. No repercussions, why even bother. Who are you to tell me to work harder? Why should I work at all? I am ENTITLED to your money so I can buy food.
And when the proletariat smells they can get other people's money, will they stop at just a pinch, so they can buy the very basic necessities? Or will they go and protest and push for more money in 15 years? Those fucking 1%-ers! They are not better than me. Who said they are better than me? Why should they have all this money. I need to feed my kids! And for booze.
You are so desperate to justify your thinking (not to me, mind you, to yourself) that you grasp for every straw possible, forgetting what the question was about along the way.
This particular question was about how you formed your opinion about Google using GA data to build advertising profiles. My opinion is formed based on my expertise in mining many terabytes of data and my experience in sourcing this data. Based on that experience I can say that GA data is not of interest to google because it is unreliable and they have better data already. Even if it was, they would have to stop themselves because it is just too damn risky (bankruptcy level risk) to use it.
So my opinion stems from my experience in this very business. And your opinion stems from where exactly? This is what I'm trying to show you. You have 0 idea what you are talking about but insist that you are right. Even further, you outright accuse google of lying when they say GA data is not used unless the webmaster explicitly opts in to share it. Why do they have that control in first place then?
Oh and btw, that quote about relevant search results and ads... you might want to check where it comes from before basing arguments off it. You know, if you want to have a coherent argument and not some tin foil conspiracy theory grasping desperately for whatever it can catch. Checking facts is a good thing, don't you agree?
Anyway, you will either admit it to yourself tomorrow, or you won't. I don't particularly care. I just wanted to see how far you will go in your justification attempt. Remember that just because you are allowed to have an opinion does not mean you must have one.
This has gone full circle and honestly is quite irritating at this point.
People say that Google uses GA data for advertising, I say that this is not the case and then you just chose to ignore that. So I'm just gonna ask directly - can you show some evidence suggesting Google uses GA data for building advertising profiles or did you pull this opinion out of your ass?
Because as someone who analyses marketing and advertising data, I can tell you that I strongly believe they do not use GA data in this way. 1) They have no need to, they have better data; 2) This data is unreliable; 3) GA prohibits the use of personally identifiable information; and most important of all:
THE WEBMASTER CAN CHOSE TO NOT SHARE IT WITH THEM. If this webmaster went out of his way to tell google not to store IP information, I think it is pretty safe to assume that they did not opt-in to share the data with google AT ALL.
Apart from these technical reasons, using GA data in the way you think they do opens a regulatory risk of EPIC proportions.
But if you have some evidence to suggest that they do use it for "advertising profiles", please do share it. But if you can't and you formed this opinion because you are prejudiced, I would like to see you admitting it.
How is GA abusive? The webmaster has to explicitly permit data sharing with google. That is, the webmaster is asked if s/he wants to share data with google and the options are unchecked by default.
GA prohibits the use of personally identifiable information.
Additionally the webmaster can tell google to not store IP info, which the webmaster has chosen to this in this case.
People just LOOVE to be outraged. For example in this thread people rage about google getting hands on their data. When I point out that the webmaster has to explicitly chose to share the data with google, I get downvoted. When I say that GA prohibits the use of PII, I get downvoted. It doesn't matter that I'm right. People WANT to be outraged. Reason, no reason, doesn't matter.
It does not compromise the user's privacy in any way. GA prohibits PII. Also, the webmaster has to opt-in to share the data with Google in the first place.