Well that's a lot of talking without any sources. At least I gave you a link in which Microsoft describes how they provide targeted ads, which of course means collecting and using customer data.
It's nice to think Microsoft is better because they also sell stuff, but under consideration that they are a business and they need to make Bing profitable, I think this is mostly wishful thinking.
Of course, provide me with a few good sources showing that I am wrong and I will be very sorry and continue using Microsoft products and Google Search, as Bing is a disaster in my country.
I didn't feel the need to cite sources because I was mostly calling you out for taking people's comments out of context and oversimplifying their arguments (something you are continuing to do BTW). Also, I'm not doing a book report.
Apparently, you are one of these people that thinks every issue in the world is black and white. You seem to think that because both companies are using "targeted advertising" that means they are both equally good or bad. Like most controversial issues, it's not that simple and there are many shades of gray between the extremes. My whole point of my post (second paragraph) was that Google takes it further than most other companies and some people aren't comfortable with that. However, you keep trying to simplify it into "so Microsoft has never advertised anything?"
The source you provided was just a Microsoft website that talks about very basic targeted advertising using things like age, gender, location, operating system, and topics of interest. There is nothing in your source that shows that Microsoft is obtaining that data in unethical ways or targeting consumers in ways that could potentially be embarrassing.
Targeted advertising could be anything from a radio commercial for condoms broadcast on a rock station instead of a Christian radio station, to a malware program that hijacks someone's browser or email contacts and steals their data while forcing ads on them and their stolen email contacts. I think nearly everyone would agree that one business model is far more invasive and far less ethical than the other. So where does Google sit on this range of extremes?
Since you wanted sources, here is one recent and well documented example of how Google collects data from consumers...
Google, FTC Near Settlement on Privacy - WSJ.com
Here are some of the highlights...
"The current charges involve Google's use of special computer code to trick Apple's Safari Web-browsing software into letting it monitor users that had blocked such tracking. Google disabled the code after being contacted by the Journal, which wrote about Google's practices in February.
Google officials say tracking of Apple users was inadvertent and didn't cause any harm to consumers. But Google's actions appeared to contradict previous statements it had made assuring Apple users that they could rely on Safari's privacy settings to block unwanted tracking. "
...and...
"The fine is expected to be the largest penalty ever levied on a single company by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission."
Here are some interesting quotes from Google's CEO Eric Schmidt...
"... all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be subject to automated processing ... Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS [electronic communications service] provider in the course of delivery"
A more accurate analogy in my opinion would be if the US Post Office or FexEx was reading your mail in transit, but apparently he feels that Google is as privileged to people's information as a trusted personal assistant.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
So much for researching a medical condition online or ordering anything remotely personal from an online retailer.
EDIT: Oh yeah, as far as your comment that ...
"It's nice to think Microsoft is better because they also sell stuff, but under consideration that they are a business and they need to make Bing profitable, I think this is mostly wishful thinking."
I would like to point out that Microsoft doesn't NEED to profit on Bing or advertising any more than Google needs to profit on the software and services (android, gmail, gdrive, maps, etc.) they provide. This is because Google makes it's money from advertising and Microsoft makes it's money selling software, services, and hardware. It seems your example actually supports the point that myself and others are trying to make.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram