Google's Heart-Warming Super Bowl Ad Called 'Evil' (shellypalmer.com) 102
"I had an uneasy feeling about the Google commercial," writes Larry Magid in his column for the San Jose Mercury News. "But I couldn't put it into words until I read a blog post from tech strategic adviser Shelly Palmer."
In the post Palmer describes Google's Super Bowl ad as "a three-hanky, heart-tugging spot that has us eavesdropping on an elderly widower hoping that Google Assistant will help him remember the highlights of his life with his late wife." The ad is beautiful, poignant, thoughtful, sentimental, informative and... evil. It may be the most evil advertisement I've ever seen. What Google doesn't tell you about the service is what it will do with all of the extra data this widower has given it: how much better it will be able to target him, who they will be able to "sell" him to, etc., all without any warning. The service is "free" — not because the widower is the "product" that Google is selling, but because this man is a worker in the mines of Google.
Where is the product labeling? Where is the disclaimer that when you tell Google Assistant everything about the best parts of your life, the algorithm enriches your profile and Google becomes more profitable at your expense?
None of this would bother me if the ad had a disclaimer, or if the ad started with a younger relative adjusting the widower's privacy settings in advance of his experience. This was an ad designed to make people who have no idea what Google does for a living (or how Google works) give Google their private data.
I don't remember a non-political television commercial making me this angry — ever. Shame on you, Google, for this invidious attack on the uninitiated. They deserve better from you. We all do!
The ad has now also been viewed over 37 million times on YouTube. The San Jose Mercury News columnist calls it "another indication of the conflicting emotions I have when it comes to what tech companies know about us." I love that I can use Google to bring up important moments in my life, but I hate that this information is being stored in servers and being used to serve me ads, even though I admit that — if I have to look at ads — I prefer those that are relevant to those that I'm completely uninterested in. So, to borrow a word from this commercial, "remember" that free services like Google and Facebook aren't completely free. We pay with our information, our attention and — depending on how the information is used — our privacy.
Ironically, the columnist is CEO of a non-profit internet safety group that "receives financial support from Google, Facebook and other tech companies."
In the post Palmer describes Google's Super Bowl ad as "a three-hanky, heart-tugging spot that has us eavesdropping on an elderly widower hoping that Google Assistant will help him remember the highlights of his life with his late wife." The ad is beautiful, poignant, thoughtful, sentimental, informative and... evil. It may be the most evil advertisement I've ever seen. What Google doesn't tell you about the service is what it will do with all of the extra data this widower has given it: how much better it will be able to target him, who they will be able to "sell" him to, etc., all without any warning. The service is "free" — not because the widower is the "product" that Google is selling, but because this man is a worker in the mines of Google.
Where is the product labeling? Where is the disclaimer that when you tell Google Assistant everything about the best parts of your life, the algorithm enriches your profile and Google becomes more profitable at your expense?
None of this would bother me if the ad had a disclaimer, or if the ad started with a younger relative adjusting the widower's privacy settings in advance of his experience. This was an ad designed to make people who have no idea what Google does for a living (or how Google works) give Google their private data.
I don't remember a non-political television commercial making me this angry — ever. Shame on you, Google, for this invidious attack on the uninitiated. They deserve better from you. We all do!
The ad has now also been viewed over 37 million times on YouTube. The San Jose Mercury News columnist calls it "another indication of the conflicting emotions I have when it comes to what tech companies know about us." I love that I can use Google to bring up important moments in my life, but I hate that this information is being stored in servers and being used to serve me ads, even though I admit that — if I have to look at ads — I prefer those that are relevant to those that I'm completely uninterested in. So, to borrow a word from this commercial, "remember" that free services like Google and Facebook aren't completely free. We pay with our information, our attention and — depending on how the information is used — our privacy.
Ironically, the columnist is CEO of a non-profit internet safety group that "receives financial support from Google, Facebook and other tech companies."
Is it really "at my expense?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing an advertisement for a product I'm interested in is not a "cost".
I'm already interested in the product, so that ad is a waste of my time, which is a cost. Or, wait, are you suggesting that it's showing me products that I'm interested in that I don't know exist? That's never happened. Yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Watching TV must be a real burden for you.
Re: (Score:1)
seriously?
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone who wasn't touched by that ad has a Turnip for a heart and a soul made of stinky Brussels Sprouts
Re: (Score:3)
Which comes first the chicken or the egg. Likely the only reason you are interested in the product is because it was advertised at you and they now track how well that ad targeted you and manipulated you into being interested in the product, so they can serve your more ads to psychologically manipulate you into buying it.
I have made a concious effort to make myself video advertising free, to view none. After a year it substantially affected my purchasing patterns, they reduced significantly and I felt very
Re:Is it really "at my expense?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that's up to each individual. I use ad blockers, so the ads that I'm subjected to are few and far between. There are billboards, but I don't need an ambulance chaser, and if did suddenly need a lawyer, it would specifically be one that didn't advertise on a billboard. Let's see... I buy Coke for family functions, because everyone likes Coke. I don't buy junkfood myself. I've never seen an ad for Alexa, but Wired, Ars, Slashdot, etc., always talk about them. I'm not of the age where "influences" influence me.
Obviously advertising works, but my non-researched assumption is that it works on the 50% of people that are below median intelligence, median self-control, median-whatever. That's a lot of people. It doesn't negate my statement that targeting advertisement is a waste of my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe you sound like me.. I'm 69 years old and IF I needed a liar err lawyer, I DAMN SURE would NOT choose one of the endless stream of shysters I see parading their bullshit on billboards all over town. As for advertising, I subscribe to the idea of "anti-advertising".. in other words, you pester me with your ads endlessly and IF I need services/products you provide, I'll find ANYBODY else BESIDES you to provide those services/products.. I am NOT a mindless sheep..
Re: (Score:2)
My cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: My cost (Score:3)
I really doubt anybody is reading it. To marketers and salesmen, you're just yet another number, even if it's a personally identifying one, like a phone number. Unless you're a mass murderer or something like that, I doubt they find anything about you particularly interesting. Unless they themselves are an oddball, all they're interested in is whether they can convince you to pay them money, and their boss probably doesn't want them spending time on anything else. Even if that weren't the case and somebody
Dignity and privacy are luxury concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Dignity isn't a thing that most Americans really give two shits about today, since they're all too busy trying to keep a roof over the heads and afford to pay for the fucking doctor.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Some of it is me being on the autism spectrum, but I don't give a shit about dignity or pride. I've had people say racist things about me to my face and I patiently smiled and took it. Why?...because my job is not to correct them, but provide for my children. I've even built a reputation at work for being able to handle heated situations because I don't care about my dignity. It's not important to me. I grew up poor and enjoy not having to worry about money MUCH more than any sense of dignity. It is an irrelevant ego boost as far as I am concerned and my self-esteem is generally based on how I view myself and that my wife and children love me....little else.
...and if you're like half the shithead grumpy old man contrarians on slashdot and give that whole "fuck facebook" line....yeah, they suck...I don't "like" them...but I appreciate them. I appreciate being able to see my kids' school activities on their facebook page. I appreciate getting event details for their youth groups. I appreciate lurking in the profiles about people I care about who live thousands of miles away. I appreciate quick glances into ghosts of the past....people who I think about on occasion, but don't like enough to actively maintain contact. I hate facebook, but accept it provides a lot of value in my life...including facets I most likely take for granted.
From taking overt racism in the face to simply using a coupon or talking back to a store clerk if they overcharge me by 5 cents....not particularly dignified, but I have many goals in life and dignity and pride are not on the list.
The same applies to privacy. I don't care if Google has my data as long as they offer something in return. Until you can prove to me that it's being abused in a way that tangibly harms me, privacy is just fear mongering. It's being sold that facebook and google "may" do something creepy with my data. They sell it so people can sell me things I'm more likely to want...in return I get goods and services....I'll take that trade.
Imagine the reverse. Would you pay $5/month for gmail? $5/month for facebook? Do you want to have to pay 25 cents per every web article you read? Seems novel and cool now...if privacy nuts got their wish and ad-based services were no longer viable, I don't think you'd appreciate being nickled and dimed. I don't think you'd appreciate never being able to share a good story or a song or a video with a friend unless they paid money. Imagine if they had to pay a nickel to see a photo of your kid/grandkid/loved-one?
It may not be dignified to you, but I find it practical and one less thing for me to worry about. Things either impact me or they're irrelevant. If social media doesn't provide me tangible harm, I don't see why I need to worry. Many many things "could" be someday used against me...way too many to be concerned about. I'll focus on the real, tangible threats to my well-being in the mean time.
Re:Dignity and privacy are luxury concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are some options like that, though they aren't universal. For example, I happily pay for YouTube Premium (I think that is what its called, but the name may have changed) because I watch a lot of videos there and never having to see an add on there (regardless of device / platform) is soooo worth the $10 a month it costs. Plus, I know that I am still helping to provide financial support to channels I watch, which an ad blocker alone would not do.
It would be nice if more sites & services had things
Re: Dignity and privacy are luxury concerns (Score:2)
You do have some points, but most of your examples are about honor, not about dignity.
In essentially every example you gave you got to keep your dignity by your "I know what matters to me" behaviour.
One may argue differently about your honor...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You talk about a hypothetical future where we all get nickel-and-dimed for a few bucks here and there while failing to recognize that your most valuable resource—your time and attention—gets nickel-and-dimed every day by the banner ads, tower ads, interstitial ads, pop over ads, auto-playing ads, sponsored articles, etc. that waste your time as you parse content from ads or have to wait to the end of an unscrupulous video or article for a disclosure that it was sponsored.
I pay about $5/mo. for e
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be dignified to you, but I find it practical and one less thing for me to worry about.
Until you do have to worry about it. Corporations never stop looking for new ways to exploit, no matter how much they promise they don't/won't do certain things.
I know people who have had their identities stolen. It's not fun, and it's one of those things that nobody takes seriously or thinks it's a big issue until it happens to them. Then, they sit around and whine about why more people don't take it seriously, only to have people like you insist that dignity and privacy don't matter as long as you get
Re: Dignity and privacy are luxury concerns (Score:2)
One b: yeah, most people have nothing to say.
One c:
Two: US agencies can get any data that any corporation has, without them being able to make the data grab known. Search the net for patriot act.
Three: in today's world, Martin Luther King wouldn't have stood a chance.
Re: (Score:1)
Would you pay $5/month for gmail?
- Yes, I have actually considered a pay email service, that runs around ~$100/year.
$5/month for facebook?
- I don't use Facebook. If I want to know what family is doing, I talk/text/email them. I could tweet, or use a dozen other messaging apps, although they are mostly proprietary, which is why I stick with call/text/email.
Do you want to have to pay 25 cents per every web article you read?
- Sounds good; If it can happen relatively effortlessly, and turns off data sc
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you instruct your kids to destroy your private journal and your private album when you die.
Because you can be sure that the thing is going on the cloud, assuming it's any good, otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds trite, but it's true: the cost to me is my dignity.
There is another cost, the cost of trust. Google has enough data to do great harm to an individual, and they have the ability to sell that data to someone else who could do great harm to an individual. Google users must trust Google that they will do the right thing.
It is ironic that most users would fight against allowing the government to possess such private information, but they willingly hand over this information to Google. Why would Google be more trustable than the government?
Re: My cost (Score:2)
Excellent points. Not only must one trust Big Brother Google not to sell the private details of your life to malicious actors. You must also trust - and obey - Big Brother Google, lest you find yourself unpersonned and denied access to your identity and to your own data.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent points. Not only must one trust Big Brother Google not to sell the private details of your life to malicious actors. You must also trust - and obey - Big Brother Google, lest you find yourself unpersonned and denied access to your identity and to your own data.
On that note, Google gets stuff wrong too. It thinks I have been to places that I have not been. Sometimes I was near the place, other times not even close. Sometimes off by 100km, sometimes by thousands. (Specifically, it said I was at a dog park 100km-ish away. Other times it said that I was in Norway and Istanbul when I was in Canada the whole time.)
What happens if a crime is committed, and Google says that I was there when I wasn't?
Have you ever allowed a stranger to make a call on your phone? What if t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It sounds trite, but it's true: the cost to me is my dignity.
There is another cost, the cost of trust. Google has enough data to do great harm to an individual, and they have the ability to sell that data to someone else who could do great harm to an individual. Google users must trust Google that they will do the right thing.
It is ironic that most users would fight against allowing the government to possess such private information, but they willingly hand over this information to Google. Why would Google be more trustable than the government?
Please swap "Google" and "government" words in your post and you will realize it's really the same thing.
And to answer your question: Google can be trusted more than the government because Google needs you to be their client make money, while the government already has your money, there's no way around that.
Re:My cost (Score:5, Interesting)
You have that completely backwards. You DO have power over government. You vote. You sit on councils and advisory boards. You campaign.
You have NO power over Google. You're not the customer. You're the cow that they're milking. They're selling your milk to the customer. They don't give two shits about you, because they have billions of other cows that they can replace you with.
To make it clearer, how about this little exercise: See how quickly you can contact somebody in your local government about an issue. Then, see if you can figure out a way to talk to somebody at Google about an issue you're having.
Re: (Score:2)
You have that completely backwards. You DO have power over government. You vote. You sit on councils and advisory boards. You campaign.
I can only vote for candidates selected by people who do not need to vote. How many politicians need to be bribed to get the laws you want? Both of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You have that completely backwards. You DO have power over government. You vote. You sit on councils and advisory boards. You campaign.
You have NO power over Google. You're not the customer. You're the cow that they're milking. They're selling your milk to the customer. They don't give two shits about you, because they have billions of other cows that they can replace you with.
To make it clearer, how about this little exercise: See how quickly you can contact somebody in your local government about
Re: (Score:2)
Dignity isn't a thing that most Americans really give two shits about today
Not true. Dignity is something most people care about. The thing here is you're not losing your dignity. Dignity is your sense of worth and respect. Some random Google drone you will never meet who would never recognize you in real life knowing the intimate details of your life does not affect your dignity precisely because the information you gave them is not tied directly to you. That person would greet you like they greeted any other stranger, or even a friend (if you have friends working at Google) and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig line reeks of irony. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Like super bowl commercials being considered an art form; and arguably the most important one to Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
it never was about any cost. your personal little privacy is completely irrelevant, and so is mine. the aggregate of that of millions of human beings, though, at the discretion of a private company that will not share that knowledge to the world nor be subject to any accountability about its use ... well that should be a little worrying to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is it really "at my expense?" (Score:1)
They wonâ(TM)t show you an ad. They will engage in an algorithm driven campaign to manipulate you into buying more things that you likely donâ(TM)t need with money you donâ(TM)t have.
Re: (Score:2)
This right here is my new tag line, a very sad but all too real statement on a lot of visual media, and not just advertisements too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not crying. You're crying.
expense (Score:1)
Google is run at the gestapo's expense - duhhh. Who do you think is paying for worldwide invasive mass surveillance? "Advertisers"? Get real....
Converting my time into the google's money (Score:1)
Boy, that was a remarkably naive first post. Why am I unsurprised to see it moderated as informative.
Personal story time. As far back as I can remember, TV has always been a vast wasteland with tiny oases of content this is interesting, informative, or amusing, but the oases have been shrinking and disappearing for some years. That's especially true for news and journalism on TV. One of my responses has been to proactively filter my video news by using YouTube. My TV time is already constrained by so-called
Yes, even Homor nods before typos (Score:2)
s/informative/insightful/
It's getting hard to sustain my motivation to proofread here. Guess why?
Re:Is it really "at my expense?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is one flip-of-the-switch away from being Big Brother. They can monitor you, they know everything about you . . . all the power is there. The potential for abuse is great enough that firms like Google that collect personal data via invasive monitoring need to be dialed back. Losing "free" services may be a necessary step.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is one flip-of-the-switch away from being Big Brother. They can monitor you, they know everything about you . . . all the power is there. The potential for abuse is great enough that firms like Google that collect personal data via invasive monitoring need to be dialed back. Losing "free" services may be a necessary step.
Well, it's not as though most Google people believe in some overarching ideology that mere individuals should be sacrificed to ... oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing an advertisement for a product I'm interested in is not a "cost".
It becomes annoying after you decided on the product to buy, bought it, and still receive ads about similar products for months and months to come.
TBH I would love to have a method to tell Google "I already bought a product in this category, stop serving me useless ads from this category".
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...you realize that on most of those ads, there's a little thing you can click on to stop seeing that ad, and it'll let you tell them just that?
Not sure how well it actually works, mind you, because normally I just adblock the fuck out of everything, but you might give it a shot.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to move the argument beyond a binary zero privacy vs. maximum privacy option.
The GDPR is designed to facilitate that. You can choose exactly how your data is used and have it deleted if you ever change your mind. You may decide that storing your photos on Google's cloud is acceptable, in the full knowledge of what they will do with that data, but that enabling facial recognition is a step too far.
Choice is the key. Informed consent for the use of your data, which can be withdrawn at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
What was my cost for giving up my data? I got a HUGE benefit: I remembered the best things about my late wife. Seeing an advertisement for a product I'm interested in is not a "cost". My "expense" is a concept, the concept of privacy. I think that if you are so clueless that you don't know that Google collects your personal information than you probably don't care about the abstract concept of privacy.
What a fool, of course, it's at your expense, just where do your think those ridiculously over inflated salaries and dividends come from. They come from you, and other poor people like you. They are the reason you can't afford to do better. They are the reason that society has so many unaddressed ills. The greed of the upper class is literally starving humanity. Sadly, it's not only you, it's almost everyone. We are all deprived because of their insatiable greed. They will inevitable bring everything to a s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between 2000s Amazon and Google is this: Amazon using my purchase history to make recommendations has offline precedent. If I'm at a bar, a half-decent bartender will be able to recommend me a drink based on the last thing or two I ordered, especially if I'm a regular. My sister used to frequent a particular Starbucks so much, that when they saw her pull into the lot, they had her coffee ready by time she hit the register. A business using prior business to influence future business is perfec
Re: (Score:3)
I use some Google services myself. Keep in particular is a lifesaver, I use it all the time. I'm far less concerned about Google than some people on this site, but I'm still concerned. Because ultimately, I agree with you, the benefits outweigh the costs... for now. That doesn't mean the costs
What is even more evil (Score:5, Funny)
is when they know you have Alzheimer's and keep referring you to buy the same things over and over that you bought last week.
Re: (Score:3)
Alzheimer's is irrelevant here - you'll get those ads anyway.
"We see you bought a vacuum cleaner last week. Here's a discount coupon for a vacuum cleaner!"
A more accurate commercial... (Score:5, Interesting)
The family and relatives leaving dad to talk to the digital assistant because it doesn't get driven crazy by dad and his Alzheimers.
Priceless! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Cool story - thanks for sharing.
That's pretty heartless (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of holier than thou attitude has become much more prominent in recent times.
Humans are aware of our mortality. We laugh at it as a coping mechanism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Having seen loved ones go through it, it's a living hell on everyone involved.
I know. We go through it right now with my elderly father. It is awful, to put it mildly.
Not something too cool to joke about.
I - we - disagree.
One of the ways we use to cope with it, my father included, is to joke about it. Humor is a very powerful tool. Deciding to not use humor for a particular subject matter is depriving yourself of a potentially useful tool for coping with it.
I'd never wish that fate on anyone, including someone like you who thinks it's OK to make flippant jokes about it.
Joking about it may not work for you, but you need to accept that you are not everyone.
That said, I agree completely about not wishing that fate on anyone, and I wis
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the thing that bothered me most about the ad was the idea that the guy needed his digital assistant to "remember" all of these things about his wife for him, and it's such a poor medium for it. It's just some text on a cell phone, and you need Google to access it.
It's the sort of thing that would be so much better for him to be talking to a family member, having that interpersonal interaction and having a person who could remind him of these things. If he wanted to record it instead of just tal
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if it was the best technology for this is the world, much better than it is now, and it only had a 5% false positive rate.
Think about the damage that could do to a vulnerable person! And then they start trying to talk to family members about these things that never happened, that google is helping them to "remember!"
"Remember that family vacation we took in Hawaii?" "I've never been to Hawaii, dad."
"Tell me about my first wife." "We've been married since you were 17. I think."
A great way to make a p
There's evil afoot... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when they dropped their motto "Don't be Evil," it was quite obvious what their intent was.
There's a reason I call Google this... (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Fits. Fits exceptionally well.
Re: There's a reason I call Google this... (Score:1)
Big Brother Google sure is rapey...
Creepiest ad ever (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. Since this was obviously extensively focus-group tested, there are a lot of people to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's creepy as hell.
It's also so incredibly depressing. Old man has nobody to talk to but a google computer. So he talks to it. Incessantly, about his dead wife. I hope that when I'm that age I will have someone real to talk to, dead wife or not.
And asking the computer to remember sentimental moments for him? Will that help with his dementia? Will he trust what it has to say? Remember that those are his memories? Remember how to work it? Obviously it's not going to be a repository for his kids, as if
Fight Club, Redux (Score:1)
Ironically, the columnist is CEO of a non-profit internet safety group that "receives financial support from Google, Facebook and other tech companies."
First Rule: In the tech world everybody whores themselves to somebody else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Incorrect. Only the prostitutes (and Americans) do that.
Somethings you don't want to be reminded of... (Score:2)
Like that time when my daughter was kidnapped...
Facebook kept nagging me to "share" my facebook film or face book memories or whatever they're calling it now.
Finally figured out how to stop it for about 10 years. May have to update that deadline....
As an actual widower... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is how the web runs (Score:2, Insightful)
You are Facebooks product. You are Googles product. You are Twitters product. You are LinkedIns product. Every service they offer and every action you take is one more thing they can sell. You are not the customer.
the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue here is that so much work, talent, and capital is going into efforts to increase the efficiency of advertising.
Among all the great challenges we have, THIS is what many of our best minds and biggest investors are working on.
If Google was trying to sell a service that helped mitigate the effects of age related memory loss, this ad would be heroic.
Re: the real issue (Score:3, Insightful)
"The real issue here is that so much work, talent, and capital is going into efforts to increase the efficiency of dystopian mass surveillance."
FTFY
Get 'em hooked... (Score:4, Insightful)
Great! Now Google can help Purdue Pharma, or someone like them, get a whole bunch more people hooked on their latest "safe" drugs & ruin their lives, or maybe help casinos target people who may be more susceptible to gambling addiction, or predatory loan companies to target the poor & vulnerable to set them into a never-ending spiral of high-interest debt, or target kids to buy vapes, or.... etc..
All too often we think about targeted advertising for stuff like groceries & smart gadgets. There's a whole world of advertising that can only really work when the general public don't know about it & regulators don't have access to it, i.e. no-one ever sees the ads except for the intended victims. That's where "targeted" comes into its own & why it's so valuable. Google, Facebook, et. al. are making a killing out of facilitating pushing vulnerable people into misery. That's why they're evil. The privacy thing is secondary to the real harm they're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook does that already. They were criticised in the UK for allowing online casinos to target people with an interest in gambling addiction self-help groups, for example.
This is why it all needs to be regulated. It's not inevitable, we (society) get to decide what is acceptable.
Life is about change (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinging to the past means not really living anymore. This tech makes that easy. That it does so for the real goal of exploiting anything it gathers to target ads better is evil, but besides the point. The real problem is its primary functionality to the user.
Re: (Score:2)
I made that exact same comment the first time I saw the commercial. It's inherently unhealthy to cling to the past. Generally, it means you don't have anything better to look forward to. Everything ahead is dark, so you focus on the idealized memories of the past you have instead.
Worse is if you just can't see what's good ahead, and miss it because you're so attached to the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
A simple rule (Score:3)
Enough already (Score:3)
All you self-righteous critics need to just stop for a second and, maybe, just give it a rest.
OMG!! Google is a business!!!
Who would have known?
Re: (Score:2)
Humans talk about stuff, who would have known?!
Give it a rest, stop being so self-righteous.
Go Whine in a Cave (Score:1)
I am so sick and tired of the privacy idiots. Wah! I looked for shoes and now they're showing me shoe ads! Wah!
We need an actual evil in this world (Score:3)
It's about time the next Hitler rose up to power. Then people may get some perspective on what "evil" truly is. Snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll second that. In the absence of true evil, people fill in all kinds of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Assad's a pretty good Hitler substitute, and most people got tired of hearing about him after a couple years. Duterte and Trump aren't quite Hitler-level (yet) but they're properly evil too. We also have real-life supervillains now in the private sector.
Re: (Score:3)
Pointing to one of the worst things any human has ever done to try and excuse Google's creepy spying network does not make Google not evil, it makes you an apologist.
Google becoming your memory (Score:2)
"I love that I can use Google to bring up important moments in my life"
Why? That's what your memory is for. If you don't use it (recall it), you will lose it, and then ONLY Google will remember your important moments. That disturbs me, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that the man in the ad is also old, he may worry about dementia or alzheimers robbing him of his ability to remember.
And, of course, people have always written down things they want to remember. This is effectively just a different way to do so. Of course, it's also one that can be monetized by Google.
G-what? (Score:2)
People talk about Gmail like it's oxygen or something. I have a Google logon only because I have an Android phone, but I only use it for the Play Store. I have never used Gmail and probably never will. I don't use Google for search, and generally live my life Google-free. Same with FB, except no account, I avoid 'em like the plague.
It's perfectly possible, even easy, to have a fulfilling online life without dealing with these parasites. Don't subscribe, or if you must, never use the account. Use ad-blockers
Enabling Exploitation of the Elderly (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's exploiting them, it's google.
But OTOH, it's also enabling them.
I just wish that it hadn't activated my speaker! (Score:2)
Any commercial that has "OK Google" in it tends to activate my smart speaker in the other room, that Super Bowl ad included. I guess that whatever signal they send to tell their Home/Nest devices to ignore the activation gets lost somewhere between my living room and the kitchen where my smart speaker lives.
tonedeaf much, google? (Score:1)
remember this, google. oh wait, you can't since you've disabled comments on this video.
We should get a cut of that data check (Score:1)
Good has been evil for a long time (Score:1)