> Reframing a problem with anything as a human problem is a tautology

I respectfully disagree.

> don’t understand what parent comment is trying to say

They're trying to say Google and those who work there are greedy. I shared my "tautology" to illustrate while OP's point may be largely correct, greed is not unique to Google.

>They're trying to say Google and those who work there are greedy.

More then that, sure they show you ads, GREAT but they screw your device and environment, this makes them no money , a small fraction of users might buy premium but the rest of the users will waste energy and bdevice life, the developers contribute to killing devices and wasting energy.

That is the user's choice. If a user comes to a bookshop wherein they are allowed to read the books for free but only in the store, they have little right to argue that they should be allowed to take the books home like paying customers because the store's lighting is not to their liking and they want to read in 6000K. They are free to picket outside and claim that the store is ruining people's eyesight, but no one sane will take them seriously.

Furthermore, the appropriate solution to this "problem" would be to stop letting people read anything for free.

So if Samsung makes a TV that will use 10x more energy if you decide not to buy the Premium Subscription you will comment that is actually a Good thing, free markets and so on, fuck that environment and fuck the "Don't be evil promise" .

Today Big Tech moto should be "Be as evil as you are able if it makes money".

Hopefully some civilized countries can add laws about wasting energy and killing devices for no good reason.

EDIT: The Google/Samsung exampel is affecting the entire planet not only the individual that "choose" that he really wants his device to be screwed and his energy bill to increase. So the individual "freedom" is screwing the entire planet for no fucking good reason , at least if you waste the battery to show ads I can understand it.