Adblock Plus Parent Company Eyeo GmbH Founded

I get what you're saying. But, you're not getting what I'm saying, at all.

1) Google has an opt out for tracking. Yes.
2) I use a hosts file to block the tracking. Yes.
3) The hosts file breaks the updating, because Google started to force GA. It used to work just fine, since day one of using Google Chrome. Curious... They had a change of heart...
4) Why should I be obligated to install extensions? I got nothing against or in favor of any extension. I'm simply not obligated to use them. Good enough or not good enough plays no role here.

 

No one if forcing you to install the extension... but if you want to opt out, that'show you can do it.

And it's their product. If they did this on purpose it could be because they want people using the opt out and not the host file. I really don't know and it's really not important because google search is their product and they get to decide how people pay, or in this case don't pay.

 

Hungry Man, for once and for all, no one's saying that we don't have the choice to use either method.

But, when Google purposefully breaks the other alternatives, we stop having choices, don't we? We only start having the Google way. That's not a choice. Sorry, but it isn't.

 

When it comes to usingn their free service you have no choice but to use their opt-out method. What's the issue with that?

My point is that you can either "pay" for their service by not opting out or you can opt out. It's their right to decide how payment goes or doesn't go. I don't get why you would imply that their forcing anyone is a bad thing as it certainly seems like that's what you were implying.

 

Again, with the lunch thing.

It's like if a restaurant has an opt-out (free) you just have to bring a green piece of paper. I bring a red piece of paper and for a while they're like "yeah whatever go ahead" but eventually they make it a strict "Green paper only" policy if you want free food.

I can either start paying for food or use their green paper only opt-out method. I'm not going to complain and say "But I want to be able to use red paper and I should have a choice." It's really not within my rights to choose how I pay (or don't pay) for their product.

Now... if only we can get this analogy in the real world >_>

 

It's a bad thing yes . Nobody is saying it's illegal or that google doesnt have the rights

 

Why is it a bad thing?

 

Have it as you want. You clearly don't get it.

Anyway, could you imagine what would be like if Microsoft only allowed Microsoft applications to be installed on their operating system (if there were no laws forbidding it)? I'm sure Google wouldn't like it, or would it? It's not so funny when it hits "us".

You probably wouldn't like it either. Could you imagine a world where you would no longer have the freedom to choose your media player, etc? It's just a rethorical question. And, off-topic. But, it's the same as what Google is now doing with GA, by breaking any other way of blocking it. Period.

 

This is not even close to being the same thing. The hell....

It's like if you tried to pay for Microsoft products in paper bags and said "But it's 300 dollars worth of paper bags." All google is doing is choosing how you pay or don't pay for their product.

This has nothing to do with choice of product, it's just how you pay. Google is'nt forcing you to use their search method.

It is absolutely mind boggling how you think that the two are the same thing.

 

To give users only one way to block ga without explaining why.

 

Who cares why? It's their product. They can say how you pay for it. Maybe it's so that they can tell how many people are blocking it (I know I can view that in the chrome web store.) It's entirely irrelevant.

You have the choice to use the other million search engines. You have the cohice to pay for it with tracking. You have the choice not to pay for it. The only thing they're doing is having you opt out using their method.

I don't go to a restaurant and say "I'm paying in euros, that's my choice." If I want to do that I can go to a restaurant that takes euros. IT is literally not my right or anyone elses to tell a company how I'll pay for their product.

 

Yes, they are related. Do you know what relates them? Freedom to choose. But, if you don't like that example, how about Google mail? Would you be OK with Google only allowing users to access Gmail, by using their browser only? What about Google search engine? Let's make it only available for Google Chrome. Etc.

After all, it would be our way of paying for their free service. We just wouldn't have any other choices, besides using Google Chrome. Their way to allow us to use Google search engine and gmail.

 

But we can suggest/complain, ask for explanations.

 

No it would be. lool you don't pay with your browser you pay with advertisments

It would be like if the opt-out was only available for chrome users, which it isn't.

Again, it's like if you were trying to pay at a restaurant with a different currency except in this case it's not paying.

You're complaining that you only have one option to not-pay for something instead of two.

 

You are complaining that you can't not-pay for their service in more than one way. That's your complaint. Am I the only one who thinks that's really silly? Complaining that your free thing isn't free in just the right way?

If a restaurant had a way to get free meals but you had to bring in a red hat would you be complaining because you like blue hats or even worse that you didn't even like blue hats but you wanted the choice to wear one? I seriously doubt it.

 

I would ask why red hats.

 

lol ok then

so have you asked?

 

Still not because I don't have an issue with it. But it would be better if google explained it without users having to send a message and waiting an unknown amount of time for the answer. But out of curiosity I will do it.

 

Feel free to. You can try emailing their privacy team or using their forums. I'm curious as to why they've done it but to complain that they're revoking choices for NOT-payment methods... mind boggling. I just don't get why some people feel not only entitled to free things but to choose the exact details of how something is free.

 

Wow can we get this thread back on track. It has somehow went from adblock to Google and GA. Somewhat related but cmon. Start another thread or something. No need for the Google fanboism here.

 

Despite what people think I'm not a fanboy. I could care less about google as a company, I just think people are ridiculously bias when it comes to google. The second you apply their arguments to another business it becomes really clear that it makes no sense.

Personally, Adblock Plus was going well on its own. I can't imagine this will help it all that much except maybe give it a direction. We'll see.

 

We pay with ads, because those companies (Google, etc) want it that way. But, couldn't they simply want us to use their browsers only, instead? (Any legalities aside.) Why not.

No one ever said that? I never raised that concern.

I still don't see how that makes a good analogy. Sorry. Potato is one thing, and tomato another.

No. You see, I use other alternatives, because they're provided. Google has decided, quite recently, to purposefully break third-party alternatives. They shouldn't, simple. Hey, good sir, you're trying to access one of our services, and you seem to be blocking Google Analytics. Do you wish to block it, then use our own extension and ditch whatever you're using to block it.

The big question I got is: If Google allows to opt-out of Google Analytics, then why doesn't Google allow users to also opt-out of it using other means? Wouldn't the goal be the same? So, all of this situation creates doubts. Why preventing users from blocking GA with tools other than their own extension, if the end goal is the same one?

 

So strange how you and I can read this and think so differently. I see absolutely no problem with a company choosing its own payment methods.

Well which is it? Do you not like that they're removing choice or do you just suspect that they're secretly doing something nefarious?

Perhaps they want to keep track of how many people are opting out? I have no clue. Make by design you need to connect to a server and without GA it will fail and they simply can't allow it to be outright blocked due to something on their end that's changed.

Maybe they're secretly still spying on you.

Again:

I don't see how this is any different. Either you think that it's wrong to be forced to wear a red had or pay or you think that they're secretly trying to do something nefarious involving red/blue hats.

 

Why can't I show disapproval for one and doubt for the other? Does it really have to be one or the other?

 

No. It doesn't. You can absolutely do both.

The main thing I would focus on is:

Would you be suspicious of this restaurant? Would you be upset that you are not allowed to wear a blue hat?

I do not see how the two are any different. The only thing google (and this restaurant) is doing is facilitating the way in which you recieve their product for free.