No it’s not. My goalpost from the beginning was “show me an example where there wasn’t a clear monetary incentive for restricting user freedom”. That one has a monetary incentive (make our paying customer for product X also buy product Y).

As for blocking things that block ads; if you can’t see the monetary incentive for Google there then I don’t know what to tell you.

I didn’t ask you to divine the future. I said “I’ve not seen them do X without trying to get Y” (a statement about the past), and you still haven’t given me a remotely credible example.

▲

fc417fc802 7 days ago | parent [-]

You will almost always be able to find a way to derive a monetary advantage from any given arbitrary restriction of user freedom. Thus your claimed goalposts are essentially pointless.

▲

johncolanduoni 6 days ago | parent [-]

Come on, I didn't come up with some 4D chess logic to impute a monetary advantage. In the examples people gave me, it was things like bundling (the oldest trick in the monopolist book) and ensuring that users look at your ads. Do you really think that if Chrome gets sued for blocking uBlock, that discovery won't find 1000 memos from executives and PMs at Google talking about how much money ensuring users have to see their ads would make?

	▲	fc417fc802 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fair point, it's less immediately obvious. Still I don't see where 4D chess is necessary. Some levers let you make money directly. The effective use of others is more opaque but if you hoard enough of them you will presumably be able to figure something out. Where's the direct monetary incentive to interfere with end users installing a modified Android image? What about SafetyNet? At absolute minimum you can use it to influence the perception of your brand as being the gold standard.
	▲	63stack 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Respectfully, you don't seem to understand the full picture on this.