It blows my mind that Google doesn't let me pay what they're getting for my data to be completely invisible, completely anonymous and utterly devoid of advertising. I suspect it's because it's such a fuckall small number that it would infuriate the world. By the bye, I do pay for gmail. $5/email address/month.
... and if you could the only demographics that would see ads would be the ones less desirable to advertisers. Mitigated by the fact that the data on demographics advertisers really want seeing ads is worthless because they aren't going to see the ads regardless so as it stands you have no privacy and advertisers on whose behalf corporate surveillance exists aren't getting what they want out of the arrangement either. So, at least not the worst case, eventually the advertisers go away and having based your business model on corporate surveillance becomes a liability. Or someone pays enough bribes to enough congresscritters to get a bill outlawing adblockers passed.
Which will have as much pragmatic importance as the Betamax suit. I think Google has a number of revenue strategies that will continue to make them money... but I also think that advertising revenues are due for a precipitous correction. The agencies have been dying for 20 years now and the only people who mourn them are the employees whose lives have started to resemble Al Bundy's more than Don Draper's.Or someone pays enough bribes to enough congresscritters to get a bill outlawing adblockers passed.
but then they would have to release a payment schedule that would show that old farts like you and I aren't worth as much to advertisers as the [fill in generational name here].Google doesn't let me pay what they're getting for my data to be completely invisible