181–190 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure it would be hard to enslave these people through television
Would it be? I'd argue the current US administration is entirely propped up by television. Hell, the president seems to "rule" based on what Fox News said last night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody once said that if Stalin had access to television, he would never have to kill 20+ million ppl. What would he do with all that data? No idea.
Only thing better to rule with is a network connected telescreen that monitors and issues orders to the proles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be? I'd argue the current US administration is entirely propped up by television. Hell, the president seems to "rule" based on what Fox News said last night.
Never saw the current US administration shipping people to labor camps with a single winter life expectancy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be? I'd argue the current US administration is entirely propped up by television. Hell, the president seems to "rule" based on what Fox News said last night.
Never saw the current US administration shipping people to labor camps with a single winter life expectancy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same with the California age input box.
The problem with the age input box is that we don't have the GDPR. We're mandating that people give accurate age information to advertisers, and it's legal for advertisers to sell detailed dossiers on people including their age and target advertising using the age. This is why Meta wrote the age input box legislation, they want to make everyone legally required to provide Meta with their age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read it? It's not that bad, unless you're thinking like an adtech programmer trying to find the exact edge case for the maximal amount of tracking you're allowed to do, because such a bright line does not exist and that fact infuriates adtech professionals. It is vague because reality is vague and complex; each specific case of alleged violation has to be interpreted by multiple humans; there is no algorithm…
The law mandates a data protection officer with specific duties. It also establishes a board that "issue guidelines, recommendations, and best practices" which is where administrative complication and nonsense always creeps in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now think what Lavrenti Beria and an LLM could have done with that.
Somebody once said that if Stalin had access to television, he would never have to kill 20+ million ppl. What would he do with all that data? No idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that even completely anonymous data that conforms to what you just said can easily become de-anonymized when contextualized to other "anonymous" data.
A marketer's definition of anonymized is worthless. It's a fantasy they want everyone else to believe in. If it can be "de-anonymized" then it was never anonymous to begin with. "De-anonymized" is quite literally an oxymoron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as anonymized location data when you have the location of something where and when they sleep and work. It's a rhetorical fiction the ad industry tells itself.
Right, there's probably no other phone in the world that typically stops for hours within 1000 feet of my bed and typically stops on Monday-Friday within 1000 feet of my work-desk.