> Far from gouging consumers, many of their services are free (users pay, in effect, by handing over yet more data)
It's not free. Users pay with their privacy and most of people are ignorant how widespread their data collection is, and how much private data is collected. The companies should compete on this characteristic, but competition is limited.
It's also paid for, among other costs and externalities, by advertising. That is a $600 billion industry, online being about $100-125 billion. Assuming that's largely paid by the world's 1 billion wealthiest people (roughLY, US, EU, CA, JP, AZ+NZ), hat wworks out to a round $600/yr., or about $100-125/yr. for online services.
Contrast direct print media spend of about $150/yr.
Something about the tech crowd. So smart in general but has such a hard time with how words are used by people. Free, stealing, both words that for some reason whenever used in an article, someone feels compelled to insist on their own definition.
Free is something 'without cost'. But you do give something in exchange, your private data. So by the correct definition of free, no, Google and Facebook's services are 'not freed.
Money is not the only form of value or that can be exchanged for products and services.
It's not free. Users pay with their privacy and most of people are ignorant how widespread their data collection is, and how much private data is collected. The companies should compete on this characteristic, but competition is limited.