So much this... but I don't see the point of avoiding the exit interview. Why not mention minor non-problems which everyone sort of agrees with or they are already doing something about... while emphasizing that you are leaving because of what the new opportunity brings and not what is bad about the company.
Disagreeing to an exit interview seems unnecessarily hostile... and it may lead to on-the-spot ad-hoc informal exit interview anyway... and the questions may take into account the fact that you disagreed to it.
Just agree and comply, tell them what they want to hear. It's easy.
Meh! RT is no different from BBC or Al Jazeera or any other state media. They will have more balanced take on most news compared to any corporate propaganda outlets like CNN or Fox.
The state news agencies are only problematic as sources when they are writing about their own government or immediate enemies... in that they will tend to prefer publishing what their leaders are saying vs what the enemy is saying about them.
> Because they stand to gain (immensely) from building my trust about their model of advertising if I choose to participate in it.
They're not gaining out of thin air. They're making a commission on how much they are saving for the advertisers (and hence the advertisees). They're creating immense value, of which, they are taking a small commission. If they were not creating immense value, the advertisers would have no need to use them. They would continue to make their businesses big enough to buy Superbowl ads (or equivalent).
> Taking away what exactly?
By blocking the ads, other people are paying for YOUR use of these services. It's the moral equivalent of not paying taxes, although it is not illegal... yet.
> Would be happy if you could explain where I got it wrong.
For example, you think this is how ad targeting by Facebook and Google works:
> in today's standards they only serve as a way to guess-timate person X bought toothpaste B because of ad campaign Z
And you think this is true:
> ads are not a game changer to consumer behavior.
It's a complete waste of time for me to debate with someone who thinks ads don't affect consumer behavior.
Facebook, Samsung and Google let you turn this functionality off. They're legally required to do so in parts of the world but they give this option to everyone.
Whichever companies are selling data, they are not like Facebook or Google then. I'd say that they're completely different if they literally collect data and sell copies to third parties. This would be illegal in some parts of the world but sure, maybe some do it.
What I'm saying is that Facebook, Google and Samsung companies are not in the business of selling data like the common disinformation messaging would have you believe.
> they would give me a toggle to switch ads on and off as I please
Why would they let you disable ads on their ad-supported platform? There are plans like YouTube premium if you want no ads in there, which I think is worth it and I do pay for it because it is a much better YouTube experience.
By using ad blockers, you are merely taking away from everyone else using the platform. I wish these companies did more to stop ad blockers.
>I recon from an individual perspective, ads are not a game changer to consumer behavior.
That's because from what you wrote, you don't seem to understand how these ad platforms work.
"Selling your data" is marketing nonsense created for disinformation. Companies like Facebook, Google or even Samsung don't sell data. They collect data and get advertisers to pay them to target ads on their behalf. The user data never leaves their system (unless hacked, but that's a different topic).
No, it doesn't bother me that they show me ads about products I'm actually interested in based on what they know about me. Not only it means that I don't get bothered with things I would most likely not be interested in, it also means that advertising costs go down significantly allowing the market to produce very niche products which would otherwise not be viable. Targeted ads is the best thing that has happened to the economy in the last decades.
When we're reading a short written comment (or tweet or what have you), we are reading it in a certain tone in our heads. This tone is entirely made up by the reader and ascribed by the reader to the commenter. It is not necessarily representative of the actual tone it was said in.
This tone is affected by our preconceptions of people, by those who conditioned us to feel that way. It may have little to do with reality.
The highly editorialized short-form content that was the only thing possible with limited airtime and print space has been abused by the traditional media for their own benefits and benefits of those who have seeked to control them.
Unedited long-form conversations are the future, the kind popularized by the podcasts... or long speeches... or even long articles... and online forums. It is possible to get a well-rounded view of people, even those you disagree with.
HN seems to be a good way to engage with people of different views. It doesn't have to be "toxic" to disagree and argue.
Disagreeing to an exit interview seems unnecessarily hostile... and it may lead to on-the-spot ad-hoc informal exit interview anyway... and the questions may take into account the fact that you disagreed to it.
Just agree and comply, tell them what they want to hear. It's easy.