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

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#121

Post by throwaway_tech »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #76
Someone1234 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the facts are wrong because rather than selling the data directly they only exploit it themselves for profit? That only holds while ignoring the fact that most of that profit comes from third parties who they're effectively selling data access to (e.g. ads where the profit is from Google's ability to know which ads to put in front of which users, effectively selling that user's privacy for profit). Pointing out th…

I don't agree that just because 3rd parties are where google profits, means that they are buying the data. If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list. That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.

>They are in the eyeball selling industry

That sounds like what TV, radio and newspaper ad space sells.

Google on the other hand is selling the data attached to those eye balls. You want Male eye balls, between the age of 18-35? You want eye balls from a certain state? city? county? How about college educated eye balls?

Knowing everything about your eye balls and monetizing that information is Google's real racket...that and fraudulent clicks (that is Google often sells fake eye balls).

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#122

Post by throwaway35784 »

gnode wrote: post #59
turc1656 wrote: post #9

Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?" Now it makes perfect sense.

Google et al often stand to benefit from privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR), because they can bear the cost of compliance, while smaller competitors copying their business model can't. Increased costs in return for a stronger monopoly. It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also want to make sure it won't hurt them.

Do you really believe they want gdpr? Or might they be more interested in keeping it out of America? I see no evidence they care about people's privacy, rather the opposite is intrinsic to their business model.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#124

Post by henryfjordan »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #121
jermaustin1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that just because 3rd parties are where google profits, means that they are buying the data. If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list. That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.

>They are in the eyeball selling industry That sounds like what TV, radio and newspaper ad space sells. Google on the other hand is selling the data attached to those eye balls. You want Male eye balls, between the age of 18-35? You want eye balls from a certain state? city? county? How about college educated eye balls? Knowing everything about your eye balls and monetizing that information is Google's real racket...…

How is what you described different from TV?

On TV, you can target so many demographics indirectly by buying ads on shows they like. Companies like Nielson have been reporting on the demographics watching shows for decades. You can also target geographically at least down to the county-ish level.

TV stations and Google both know who is watching what and selling access to their customers to advertisers. Google might be a bit more sophisticated than TV, but besides "retargeting" (following you around different sites) they use the same basic techniques and offer the same things to Advertisers

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#125

Post by Spivak »

throwaway_tech wrote: post #121
jermaustin1 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that just because 3rd parties are where google profits, means that they are buying the data. If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list. That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.

>They are in the eyeball selling industry That sounds like what TV, radio and newspaper ad space sells. Google on the other hand is selling the data attached to those eye balls. You want Male eye balls, between the age of 18-35? You want eye balls from a certain state? city? county? How about college educated eye balls? Knowing everything about your eye balls and monetizing that information is Google's real racket...…

This is still not very different than TV. Cable channels know what demographics of the people that watch their shows and sell their eyeballs accordingly. Hell, entire shows exist to specifically attract certain types of eyeballs.

If I pay you $5 to show an ad in front of a certain type of person and you come back and tell me that you did it I haven't really learned anything about that person. It seems hard to say that that is the same as selling people's data.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#126

Post by soraminazuki »

Spivak wrote: post #125
throwaway_tech wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are in the eyeball selling industry That sounds like what TV, radio and newspaper ad space sells. Google on the other hand is selling the data attached to those eye balls. You want Male eye balls, between the age of 18-35? You want eye balls from a certain state? city? county? How about college educated eye balls? Knowing everything about your eye balls and monetizing that information is Google's real racket...…

This is still not very different than TV. Cable channels know what demographics of the people that watch their shows and sell their eyeballs accordingly. Hell, entire shows exist to specifically attract certain types of eyeballs. If I pay you $5 to show an ad in front of a certain type of person and you come back and tell me that you did it I haven't really learned anything about that person. It seems hard to say tha…

A major difference is that TV doesn't spy on you while online advertisers do. TV targets ads based on the content of the shows, similar to how contextual ads used to work based on the content of the websites they were placed in. They don't try to spy on your each and every move.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#127

Post by Retric »

Spivak wrote: post #125
throwaway_tech wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are in the eyeball selling industry That sounds like what TV, radio and newspaper ad space sells. Google on the other hand is selling the data attached to those eye balls. You want Male eye balls, between the age of 18-35? You want eye balls from a certain state? city? county? How about college educated eye balls? Knowing everything about your eye balls and monetizing that information is Google's real racket...…

This is still not very different than TV. Cable channels know what demographics of the people that watch their shows and sell their eyeballs accordingly. Hell, entire shows exist to specifically attract certain types of eyeballs. If I pay you $5 to show an ad in front of a certain type of person and you come back and tell me that you did it I haven't really learned anything about that person. It seems hard to say tha…

If I target 21-26 year olds with an advertising campaign, and someone clicks on that add. Then Facebook just told me they think the person at the other end of that click is 21-26. From my perspective they just sold that information.

With TV, it’s all vague guess on their part about what kind of content people like. Are the people watching daytime soaps can be 18 or 80, it’s vague topic and time of day based filtering.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#128

Post by ggggtez »

turc1656 wrote: post #9

Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself "hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?" Now it makes perfect sense.

>Glad I actually read the actual article.

Implying you usually just base your opinion on headlines? That seems like a risky proposition...

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#129

Post by brtt »

edmundsauto wrote: post #115
brtt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just bc data doesn't leave the platform doesn't mean they are not selling products with it baked in. Maybe it's semantics, but if you buy an audience to target based on data that FB is capturing, you are buying user data.

It's more than a semantic difference. Buying user data means you are purchasing data. That is not what is happening here. When you purchase data, it can be remixed and resold, can be used outside the original terms of service agreed to between FB/Google and their users. This is difficult to enforce agreed upon protections, and is a troubling issue (e.g. Cambridge Analytica had user data they used in a "clearly wrong"…

Who is the hypothetical you in the second to last paragraph? You are assuming one scenario, that of a brand or agency planner, who is creating a media plan with audience builder or w/e the name is these days.

Saying or assuming that no tech companies sell user data is disingenuous. Case in point, doesn't Edmunds have an exclusive data contract to share data with Oracle Data Cloud?

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#130

Post by Spivak »

soraminazuki wrote: post #126
Spivak wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still not very different than TV. Cable channels know what demographics of the people that watch their shows and sell their eyeballs accordingly. Hell, entire shows exist to specifically attract certain types of eyeballs. If I pay you $5 to show an ad in front of a certain type of person and you come back and tell me that you did it I haven't really learned anything about that person. It seems hard to say tha…

A major difference is that TV doesn't spy on you while online advertisers do. TV targets ads based on the content of the shows, similar to how contextual ads used to work based on the content of the websites they were placed in. They don't try to spy on your each and every move.

This is true but not super relevant to the question of whether paying someone to place an ad in front of certain demographics is selling information.

Because sure, Google knows a lot of people and they have a lot of ad space to fill which means they have a good chance at finding and reaching the demographics I asked for but I don’t get any of that information as part of my transaction with them.

Post reply on HN