391–400 of 765 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't use google, duh.
Google ad-tech still tracks you as you browse non-google websites.
But telling a small newspaper to stop using ads for revenue, when you aren't willing to financially support them is... hypocritical.
In short - just like a lot of "this ids good for you" laws, this will definitely impact smaller companies way more than you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cambridge Analytica.
FYI - referring to Cambridge Analytica like it has any meaningful relationship to privacy, ad tech or election results is the silliest thing you can say to someone who has any understanding of the subject. Cambridge Analytica is a like a canary in a coal mine that says, "this person has no actual understanding of the issues".
Your comment is rather light on information that might support your points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... but are unable to produce specific harms Google and Meta ad tracking creates. One of the first results of a Google search: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3555102 > Also all the data is out there and me and my family in a million databases. Just like in the 80s with the yellow books. Did you know you can buy a list of almost every American with an estimate credit score and income and other details? This is 5…
My argument is - this data doesn't hurt anyone, is not likely to hurt anyone, and it is valuable enough that banning ad targeting is a mistake. Per your specific harm: Thank you for actually responding with a real potential harm, the first time ever in 10 years of posting similar comments on HN! Weight loss ads (along with teeth whitening ads) are much more common with non-targeted ads, by the way. When ad targeting…
I see where you come from, but that data shouldn't be for sale.
Regardless of the fact that it may be valuable for some third party, if I have not given my consent, that should be enough to instantly ban any storage and processing of it. This should be the default. At the very least, we, the people being profiled, should be part of the conversation.
But we failed at forecasting what profiling and targeted ads would become, didn't properly regulated them, and now it seems that every marketer expects to get their hands on everyone's data, just because it is valuable for their businesses.
While there may not be current and widespread harm, although that is debatable, the default shouldn't be letting companies syphon data and build profiles about people without consent.
And quite honestly, I don't care if a business burns to the ground as the consequence of unethical behaviour. It should happen more often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upon logging into okcupid today I received a pop up inviting me to join The League (another dating app), with my phone number already pre-propagated. After accepting, they sent me this email. > We use the combination of your Facebook and LinkedIn data plus your About Me and Photos to ensure we are building a balanced, high-achieving and diverse community. Our screening algorithm looks at indicators like social influe…
One of those things y'all never upvote is papers about psychodiagnostic software that uses your social media posts, cell phone location data, etc. to diagnose both chronic and acute psychiatric conditions. I'm fairly certain that if a person is highly active on social media such a system could produce a better diagnosis than most people get when they see a professional, if only because the quality of psychodiagnosis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upon logging into okcupid today I received a pop up inviting me to join The League (another dating app), with my phone number already pre-propagated. After accepting, they sent me this email. > We use the combination of your Facebook and LinkedIn data plus your About Me and Photos to ensure we are building a balanced, high-achieving and diverse community. Our screening algorithm looks at indicators like social influe…
Reminds of the days when your name, address, and phone number were automatically listed in the phone book. You had to pay the phone company to not list your information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_directory
And, at least here, they contained last name and one letter of the first name. No information on gender/interests/articles read/ads clicked/locations visited/family/friends/devices used/apps installed/items bought/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Others have addressed the surveillance issue plenty (but in case it's still not clear, if your data is for sale commercially, then your government will buy it), but I think it's important to also stress the insidiousness of repeated mass consumer propaganda, given your toilet bowl cleaner example. Consider Oreo O's: a breakfast "food" with 11.5 g sugar and 1.3 g protein. Allegedly (according to the Wikipedia article)…
The truth is, there are far more complex reasons behind American kids being fed sugary cereal than "the dumb people got duped by the evil advertisers (but not me of course!)." It turns out kids like sugar, incomes have been stagnant for decades, and food deserts exist. What's the cheapest, shelf stable food item on a per-meal basis that your children will voluntarily eat without a fight before work? Sugary cereal. Co…
We bought it in the same stores where we bought real food back then. We buy food in the same stores that have breakfast cereal now.
I haven't watched TV or movies for like the last 10 years, and I've blocked ads on my computers for ~20, so I've at least minimized the most blatant exposure, but I don't think myself immune. That's why I've done what I can to remove them from my life. But I'm naive too; like I didn't realize until recently that radio "callers" are just iheartmedia employees, or that you can just buy an "interest" piece on the news or Ellen or an "opinion" or "lifestyle" piece in the newspaper or whatever. It makes sense in retrospect, but the extent to which literally all media around us are just ads is hard to wrap one's head around, and a little unexpected IMO. I don't think it's intuitive or that you have to be dumb to be tricked. You just have to be honest enough that it wouldn't occur to you that everything around you is lying and that these people will relentlessly work to construct some Hell version of Plato's cave in order to sell you things and that it's basically legal to do so.
Maybe I'm just one of the dumb ones, but IMO ads like this[0] masquerading as national news should maybe require extremely clear labeling and disclaimers, or just be illegal. Maybe when shills on youtube say "this is sponsored, but this is my real opinion", the second half of that sentence should be illegal. Maybe they should have to say "this video is an advertisement for X, and I am not presenting my opinions on it".
The food desert idea is plausible, but the literal definition is useless (poor people can't walk 0.5 miles?), so I'm forced to be skeptical of any claims around it.
To me the plausible explanation for breakfast cereals is that people underestimate how evil these companies can be, and probably figure it must be illegal to sell candy advertised as food or something, so it can't be that bad if it's so common and if it's allowed to be advertised on TV. Surely they couldn't or wouldn't say it's "part of a complete breakfast" if it weren't at least mostly true. Surely if it's on the news, the reporter would mention if it's actually extremely horrible for you and surely the "report" isn't literally written by the advertiser.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/oreo-os-cereal-returning-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a conspiracy here that people can't see. Free sites will close without targeted advertisement, obviously; they barely can afford to pay salaries now, so with untargeted ads it will be impossible. And the only media sites that will be able to afford to run are those that are subsidised by the state. This is already happening in Europe, where most of the big media are practically bankrupt and their income comes…
I don't understand. We were able to run with untargeted ads for decades. Why now, suddenly only targeted ads are viable?
This is not idle talk. Think e.g. about personal credit. An important consideration in certain banking models is filtering out good from bad credits. Guess what, so-called "alternative credit data" which include social media activity is already a thing (search for it).
Its basically a digital wild west. Greed, hypocrisy, misrepresentation, collusion, corruption. As a rule, anything that is not be prohibited by draconian fines and license removals will be done. The honeypot is irresistible and people left on their own are just digitally illiterate idiots.
Ok, my contrarian hot take (for HN at least). The real entities we need to be afraid of in regards to privacy are governments & politicians, not companies & entrepreneurs. The worst thing a company can do is try to sell you more soap. The government on the other hand can literally ruin your life (or even end it in some countries). The EU is doing a fantastic job of keeping everyone distracted by pointing the finger a…
Every time this type of discussion comes up, I'm amazed at the cognitive dissonance of the EU. They restrict data transfer to the US because "The US government might spy on your data" while simultaneously pushing to break encryption for everyone so ... the government can spy on all your data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upon logging into okcupid today I received a pop up inviting me to join The League (another dating app), with my phone number already pre-propagated. After accepting, they sent me this email. > We use the combination of your Facebook and LinkedIn data plus your About Me and Photos to ensure we are building a balanced, high-achieving and diverse community. Our screening algorithm looks at indicators like social influe…
Reminds of the days when your name, address, and phone number were automatically listed in the phone book. You had to pay the phone company to not list your information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_directory
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning personalised ads does not mean banning all ads. Although personally, I'm no fan of any kind of ads, and I wouldn't mind if the entire ad industry disappeared. And if that means ad-driven websites disappear too, I don't see that as a big loss. The best websites are not ad-driven.
Do you think a generic ad has the same value as a personalzied ad?