Perhaps, but in a normal business partnernship, you have contracts that spell out the terms and means of recourse. With Google ad services, you have vague ToS spelled out by one party and no real recourse.
Maybe but having no mechanism for recourse is pretty unusual. Even Heath insurance companies, which are one step above bloodsucking parasites, have phone support that can actually do stuff.
Health insurance companies are subject to tons of regulations per the Affordable Care Act. One which does not allow them to refuse customers and another which gives customers the right to appeal to a third party.
> > Google is not your friend and must be treated as an adversary.
> This applies to literally any public corporation.
I can clearly see the "not your friend" part.
Are all public corporations the adversaries of citizens though? I'm not sure.
I'm not asking for edge cases: companies tend to be friends and not adversaries for their CEOs, for example, and I can imagine that Red Hat (when independent) was not any individual's adversary).
But it a good heuristic that any given public company will be your adversary? Certainly none really care about you.
>Are all public corporations the adversaries of citizens though?
In a way, yes. Public corporations generally seek profit maximization. Rational consumers seek value maximization. More profit for seller = less value for consumer. Less profit for seller = more value for consumer. This is an adversarial situation by definition.
I don't think every corp really warrants this kind of response. Google has a monopoly, and does an exceptionally poor job of assisting their customers. It is not the norm.
