I worked for Amazon on a team that touched this, and I can confirm this is basically true.
For recommended products, Amazon's algorithm prefers widgets that generate more revenue (which sponsored products has a huge advantage with), and thus those products typically get ranked higher.
If there was some grand conspiracy here, wouldn't it make more sense to release a working front end, and do whatever evil machinations / rigging behind the scenes...
Intentionally releasing a broken app is an idiotic excuse for a conspiracy.
If there was some grand conspiracy there wouldn't even be a news story. We'd have read Iowas results in the early hours of the morning and moved on with our lives.
I'm pretty sure caucus votes are public anyway, it's not a secret ballot.
You can't really rig votes even with an app. Hanlon's razor probably applies here; never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
I seem to recall that the reason marketing costs seem high relative to R&D is that large firms typically acquire much smaller firms, small firms which invested a ton of money developing a drug but without the means of distributing it.
When a company like Pfizer acquires said company, none of the R&D spending of the smaller company gets absorbed into Pfizer's balance sheet.
In 2006, the pharma entire industry spend 12 billion in marketing, but 58.8 billion on r&d. Simply looking at individual large companies' doesn't do this justice.
India's hunt for illegal immigrants is transparently aimed at the country's Muslims. Any suggestion otherwise is just wrong.
The government, over the last few years, has subjected many of its citizens to a bureaucratic nightmare to prove their citizenship. In many cases, all it takes to be declared a foreigner is for a neighbor to file an "objection" letter, which amounts to nothing more than an accusation. From there, the onus is on you to prove your own nationality to the nightmare that is India's legal system.
Under India's new citizenship law, Hindus (and members of most other religions) swept up into this mess can simply petition for citizenship. Conveniently for the current government, Muslims cannot.
Agree about the overall point, but this example is unfortunate: complaints about fragmentation are not only about money: crappy apps, less convenience, lack of availability (outside US), etc.
I'd think single source vs fleet of disparate services is a bigger concern. If I have to track and maintain 10 subscription services to get the stuff I want, I'd rather just pirate it, the inconvenience factor is too high otherwise.
This seems exceedingly hyperbolic. With advertising, we can enjoy many services free of charge.
Using google as an example, google maps, search, android, etc all provide tremendous value to their users while being ostensibly free. Without revenue, they simply wouldn't be able to exist.
Having witnessed what advertising and marketing strategies do to psychologically vulnerable people, I now feel I am financing these services on their back.
I know someone who is in debt (and in denial) because she can't resist buying something that is "on sale". Her house filled with things she does not need but that were a bargain.
No, "targeted psychological manipulation" is not an hyperbole, you just are not the target. You, when you see "YOU HAVE WON A PRIZE!" blinking you think "Yeah, right, who falls for these anyway?" The answer is, a few people whose life is pretty miserable.
I'd rather have the internet financed in a sane way through microtransactions than the thing we have now.
It's not free of charge, you're just paying in a different way. These services are able to operate because they deliver content that changes your mind in a way that benefits the corporations who pay for ads. They alter your purchasing habits, sway you politically, and change your emotions. If they were not able to manipulate you then they would be worthless.
I would change “ostensibly free” to “nominally free”. While you pay no up front cost, you are worth a dollar value to these companies.
That money isn’t being spun out of thin air, it’s being extracted from you somehow.
Whether that method of abstraction is getting you to buy something you otherwise wouldn’t have, or by using your data to manipulate others to do the same; they exact their toll on you.
> Without revenue, they simply wouldn't be able to exist.
Nonsense. OSM exists, HN exists, Linux exists. And just because some services need revenue to pay bills, it doesn't mean advertising or users paying is the only way to get it. Google Maps gets revenue from businesses using it on their websites, for example.
> With advertising, we can enjoy many services free of charge.
Using google as an example, google maps, search, android, etc
Google gets much much more than just showing you ads. You surrender all your digital life using Google free services, and that info is priceless, because 95% of people did the same. What would you say if in 10 years, government, police and businesses will routinely use google data for background checks? It is just one use case.
This isn't some moral position, it's an economic one.
ISP's make money with the data they gather. Once you remove that as a revenue stream, it'll naturally increase the prices those companies are willing to charge.
They make more than enough money by providing the Internet service. They should have nothing to do with your data. Especially considering, how easily they can spy on you. It's like your post office delivery would charge you more, if they'll not sniff through your mail. This thing shouldn't even come up as a "feature", it should be the always enabled default.
The USPS likely would charge you more, if they weren't already in the business of selling both address lists and access (carrier route deliveries of bulk mail). So they might not be sniffing your mail, but from what it seems the postal service needs your data to survive.
That's why it should be a government service. No more tracking by private companies reselling your data to everyone and their dog. No more foreign governments selling you crazy ads.
It's obvious greed. There is no need to violate people's privacy for the ISP. Which you yourself point out. They don't do it out of need, but because they can.
For recommended products, Amazon's algorithm prefers widgets that generate more revenue (which sponsored products has a huge advantage with), and thus those products typically get ranked higher.