Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 146 posts

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#91

Post by edmundsauto »

shadowgovt wrote: post #87
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. Why do so many people think that these companies sell your data?

Because people are profoundly bad at understanding how modern online advertising works and the companies profiting from it have done a notably bad job of consumer education. The most common behavior people observe that makes them think companies are selling their data is when they visit some site P that sells widget p and then on completely unrelated site Q they start seeing ads for p. The obvious conclusion to draw…

There is also an element of people (esp. on this forum) who strongly dislike big tech companies, and want to use inflammatory language to strengthen their point.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#92

Post by Despegar »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #69
Despegar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I'm aware of their history and the positions they've taken on privacy issues. They've always been the actual pro-privacy group, unlike the others which represent tech industry interests. The EFF, popular with many tech workers, also falls into the latter group. They've started to pivot post all the privacy scandals of the past few years, but in general they've taken positions that align with the tech industry…

How do you know EPIC isn’t representing the interests of its own donors? I don’t think you’re applying a consistent standard here.

I was mainly attacking those think tanks for providing air cover for tech industry interests. I'm sure there are actual examples of tech companies also donating to EPIC, as well as employees of tech companies.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#93

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tus88 wrote: post #89
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this theory is that it doesn't align with facts. Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt they donate a lot to privacy groups. The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is a comb…

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what a paid shill smells like.

Wait, I'm supposed to get paid for this? Who sends me the... is it a W.2 or a 1099? Somebody call my agent. I think I'm getting ripped off.

That's funny. Was that meant as a joke? It's like the reverse variant of the fallacy of the article. You imply that I'm getting paid based on my positions, the article implies that they're taking positions based on getting paid. No consideration of the possibility that the same positions could be held without compensation.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#94

Post by skybrian »

shadowgovt wrote: post #84
thfuran wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is like the difference between a salesman asking a bartender what type of drinks you prefer and them having a transcript of everything you ever said in the bar. What? That's a difference in scale, not in kind.

Correct. The better analogy is the salesman asking the bartender that when someone orders X drink, give them Y drink also for free. The salesman never actually gets to find out what customers got Y, though they can learn how many Y were given away and thereby get some secondary signal on how popular X is (and, of course, if individual bar patrons walk directly out of the bar and say "Hey, can I buy more Y?" the sales…

It's too simple to say they don't learn anything. If you actually click on the ad, advertisers sometimes gain some information (based on IP address, third-party cookies, and maybe browser fingerprinting) Sometimes they might get some information just by running the ad via analytics.

It's a bit murky whether the amounts to being able to identify you. It's not clear how much advertisers care about identifying people who don't buy or how effective advertising actually is. And this data goes stale pretty quickly anyway.

So it comes down to, "well, it depends." None of this is comforting to people who don't want to be tracked. On the other hand I haven't heard anything credible about people being directly harmed by it? It seems more about the principle of the thing?

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#96

Post by erikpukinskis »

buboard wrote: post #40
erikpukinskis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re talking about the “libs” who “destroy lives” such that people with important “truth” are never heard from again, right? Is that what you’re alluding to?

no

That’s a relief. Would be nice to know what you meant though.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#97

Post by svieira »

shadowgovt wrote: post #84
thfuran wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is like the difference between a salesman asking a bartender what type of drinks you prefer and them having a transcript of everything you ever said in the bar. What? That's a difference in scale, not in kind.

Correct. The better analogy is the salesman asking the bartender that when someone orders X drink, give them Y drink also for free. The salesman never actually gets to find out what customers got Y, though they can learn how many Y were given away and thereby get some secondary signal on how popular X is (and, of course, if individual bar patrons walk directly out of the bar and say "Hey, can I buy more Y?" the sales…

Yes. And as we know, Prolog is turing complete. Therefore†, anything which the salesman could do if he could hear ever bar patron's conversation, he can do by a clever set of ad deployments (though it may be orders of magnitude less efficient).

----

† Yes, I'm stretching the "proof" beyond its breaking point here.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#98

Post by ben_jones »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58
cj wrote: post #8

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third…

The problem with this theory is that it doesn't align with facts. Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt they donate a lot to privacy groups. The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is a comb…

Does Google BUY consumer data as Facebook does? Do any of Google's acquired companies buy or sell user data? Do any of Google's expanding enterprise products buy or sell user data?

If the answer is yes to these questions Google may have a clear competitive reason to lobby for pro data selling/buying legislation to the detriment of users which may signal that these privacy advocacy groups may not actually be privacy advocacy groups as the article alludes to.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#99

Post by Spearchucker »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58
cj wrote: post #8

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third…

The problem with this theory is that it doesn't align with facts. Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt they donate a lot to privacy groups. The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is a comb…

The distinction is meaningless. My data, and data about me is collected against my will without my consent for a third party's financial gain.

It, ALL OF IT, is wrong. There is no nuance that legitimizes ANY of it.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#100

Post by Spearchucker »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58
cj wrote: post #8

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand: > Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding. > The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third…

The problem with this theory is that it doesn't align with facts. Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt they donate a lot to privacy groups. The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is a comb…

The distinction is meaningless. My data, and data about me is collected against my will without my consent for a third party's financial gain.

It. Is. Wrong.

There is no nuance that legitimizes any, or even any part of it.

Post reply on HN