> With Google+, it became clear that we were all little more than webs of flesh spun over packages of saleable data.
What data is allegedly being sold, and who is Google selling it to?
What data is allegedly being sold, and who is Google selling it to?
One way of capitalizing on that, without selling the data, is to sell access to advertise on the basis of that data.
The point is not to claim that Google is selling our data, but just another way of stating that we're the product, not the customer.
It's an unfair lumping because what Google does is a far cry from that.
Whether or not a subjective interpretation is that she is "trying to lump" Google together with these companies, she did not come straight out and make such an allegation in the article. When you then imply in your comment that she did, it's a bit rich to accuse her of "unfair lumping" afterwards.
Google holds that data and has advertisers come to them, and pay them to make sure their products are seen by the people interested in related products.
And the same thing next week.
And the same thing the week after.
The more information Google has on you to more accurately correlate your interests, the more valuable the data is and the more Google can charge for the access they provide.
Everything Google does to get you to give up more information is Google improving the product they have to sell.
She didn't.
That she made claims about "saleable data" does not imply they've actually offered it up for sale.
See, that's not how words work.