He seemed at least as concerned about the perception of privacy as with privacy itself.
"Schmidt continued: "Our business is highly measurable. We know that if you spend X dollars on ads, you’ll get Y dollars in revenues." At Google, Schmidt maintained, you pay only for what works.
Karmazin was horrified. He was an old fashioned advertising man, and where he came from, a Super Bowl ad cost three million dollars. Why? Because that’s how much it cost. What does it yield? Who knows.
"I’m selling $25bn of advertising a year," Karmazin said. "Why would I want anyone to know what works and what doesn’t?"
Leaning on the table, hands folded, he gazed at his hosts and told them: "You’re fucking with the magic."
And what, praytell, might Google do with THAT juicy data?
The ACCESS Act has three main components that would apply to the largest tech platforms:
Here’s what that means in plain English:
First, consumers ought to have the ability to switch social media platforms and other online services without having to start from scratch. This idea of data portability would allow you to take all your data ~ including your cat videos ~ and move it to a different service.
Second, for data portability to really make a difference, we need to break down the anti-competitive barriers that companies put up to limit their competitors from interacting with their platforms.
This is the idea behind interoperability, the open exchange of information.
Third, we need to preserve delegatability — the idea that consumers should be able to allow a third-party service to manage their privacy settings across multiple platforms.
"Trust your users. If they say a piece of content was intended to harm them then remove it, at least temporarily. The great (heretofore unrealized) fear that users will abuse the actual systems for reporting abuse is not worth a single person’s fear for their own life. Plus, it’s pretty easy to tell the difference between someone who’s reporting people they dislike from someone who’s reporting intended harm."