If Google priced Premium to replace the very small revenue they must receive for adverts (at least for the small amount I use YouTube), that would be one thing. But they're asking for a lot more.
Two parents w 6 Google logins between them (2 personal, 4 work entities) and 4 kids, each w a personal and school account.
This would require 14 YouTube Premium accounts. Um...no.
How about a company providing user agents which can undertake searches on one’s behalf (e.g. to Google, DDG, etc) and filter those results? There may not be a need to reinvent search but instead to filter search results. Such agents may preemptively download result pages and use machine learning and other users feedback to assess their relevance. It could also curate content more than ad blockers and Readability by, for example, hiding less relevant content (e.g. all recipes seem to follow some SEO-optimized format of posing pages of gibberish before presenting the actual recipe). This sounds like a browser or browser extension coupled with servers to maintain the relevance models. This may be coupled with a VPN so pages could be downloaded as that user and analyzed in the cloud and sent to the user only if/when needed.
I wonder how the DA could settle with the victim (we won’t keep the money if you promise not to sue) when the original civil forfeiture charge is technically against the money, not against the victim. I wonder if he has the right to continue legal action against the DA because he did not receive any benefit for relinquishing his legal rights. If a civil rights organization chose to pursue this and convinced a court that the DA would have to provide restitution, that may convince law-enforcement that there’s a cost to pursue civil forfeiture if it’s without basis.
Two parents w 6 Google logins between them (2 personal, 4 work entities) and 4 kids, each w a personal and school account. This would require 14 YouTube Premium accounts. Um...no.