• KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Part of it (I think) is that they treat their userbase as their customers, when in fact, we’re not - the companies they’re farming out our data to are the customers. We’re the product, or rather, we’re producing the product.

    The ideal case for both them and us would be for them to keep us as complacent and happy as possible, so we use their service more - remove as many roadblocks as possible, add in QOL features, charge nothing, etc.

    Then, when they have a bigger, more consistent influx of data, they put the thumbscrews to the companies that want to purchase that data, or want access to the API for AI training or whatever, and charge them a mega premium.

    Not that I love the idea of being “the product”, but from a purely utilitarian view, that seems like the most long-sighted way for them to operate.

    • comfortablyglum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not so much being the “product” that bothers me, as it is the whipping-horse manipulation to force us to give more more more with while they give less less less.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even in that logic, it doesn’t make sense to create products that nobody wants.

      They seem to fundamentally not understand, what users actually want - and fulfilling that need would actually make them money. But they can’t fathom what we want.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        and fulfilling that need would actually make them money

        That’s basically the point I’m trying to make. Users produce the product (data), and by keeping users happy, we produce more of the product, which they can then sell at a better rate.