71–80 of 105 posts
I cannot believe we are still in this ridiculous situation with these dreadful cookie approvals on Every. Single. Page. How did we let Europe do this to us?
Yep. Annoying as hell, this should have been a browser setting. Global/per site/etc. But we should not blame EU here, we should blame predatory advertising tactics.
Most sites that have this pop up aren't being predatory. The EU is fully to blame for ruining the internet.
I wonder, how much my personal information is actually worth? The stuff you have at least? And if I were to approve it for the sale, what would be my cut of that value be? As surely I deserve it?
According to the Equifax Data Breach Settlement Fund, it's worth $5.21: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34279700
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not tech specific, this is the world we live in. It is built on ignorance. - It is the steak I ate at dinner. - It is the AC I turned up in summer. - It is the car I drive etc.
Society does indeed effectively force us to participate in a number of immoral systems and choices but the ones you listed are not equivalent to voluntarily choosing a job whose fundamental basis is deceiving people into violating their privacy for your personal gain.
As I'm sure you're aware, the majority of the population doesn't bat an eye at that. I don't think it's at all surprising that enough people wouldn't be bothered by some non-lethal deception for monetary gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the root issue here "propaganda" in ads? If so, should we focus on banning that? Otherwise, if an ad is straight facts, even if it's making a specific argument based on your personality, is that intrinsically bad? Is it bad that we are exposed to convincing counter-arguments? Shouldn't we occasionally re-exam our beliefs, especially in light of new information? More philosophically, should we, as free-willed pe…
> if an ad is straight facts How would you determine this? Distinguishing fact from opinion is impossibly difficult, just ask social media companies. Besides, ads are supposed to be manipulative, otherwise they wouldn't be nearly as effective. Taken to its extreme, and with the capabilities of adtech, it's no wonder they're used for propaganda, to influence elections, etc. None of this spreads "new information" meant…
Rather than banning everything that's not "straight facts," from ads to the news media, maybe teaching our population critical thinking is the solution instead. If our population is dumb, it'll always be extra-vulnerable to manipulation, no matter what regulations and guardrails we put in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that your personal information doesn't just subject you to targeted ads. It also makes you vulnerable to propaganda, behavioral modification, and all sorts of psychological manipulation. Advertisers have known this for decades, and the internet has given them the perfect delivery method. While you can't be entirely invisible online, you can certainly make things more difficult for adtech by changing some…
Isn't the root issue here "propaganda" in ads? If so, should we focus on banning that? Otherwise, if an ad is straight facts, even if it's making a specific argument based on your personality, is that intrinsically bad? Is it bad that we are exposed to convincing counter-arguments? Shouldn't we occasionally re-exam our beliefs, especially in light of new information? More philosophically, should we, as free-willed pe…
I am one of those few who loves ads. Some banners catch my attention to the point that I start analyzing the design and marketing choices made by their creators. I save the most outstanding banners to my hard drive to enjoy them later. Is this a full-blown pathology or just an eccentric kink? Who knows, but the presented sarcastic article resonates with me. Needless to say, I watch hours of YouTube videos full of ads…
Video ads on the other hand ...
I now see completely irrelevant ads for things like stair lifts for the elderly. I quite enjoy not being targeted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the root issue here "propaganda" in ads? If so, should we focus on banning that? Otherwise, if an ad is straight facts, even if it's making a specific argument based on your personality, is that intrinsically bad? Is it bad that we are exposed to convincing counter-arguments? Shouldn't we occasionally re-exam our beliefs, especially in light of new information? More philosophically, should we, as free-willed pe…
Do you honestly believe that advertising is a legitimate and useful source of truthful factual information that people should be using to make decisions and shape their thinking about the world?
in all seriousness, i'll take the contrary opinion, i love targeted ads. saves me time, and there's no way to keep my data private anyway, so i might as well get some value out of it. i wish there were a browser plugin called "please accept all cookies" which would just get rid of the friction, and as a downstream fringe benefit, show me better ads.
Do you have money burning a hole in your pocket? I don't want to be constantly prompted to buy and consume things. When I have a problem, I research solutions and buy a product or service if necessary. I don't care what those with the largest marketing budgets think I should buy. I also follow companies on social media that I know and trust if I think I might be interested in their future products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if an ad is straight facts How would you determine this? Distinguishing fact from opinion is impossibly difficult, just ask social media companies. Besides, ads are supposed to be manipulative, otherwise they wouldn't be nearly as effective. Taken to its extreme, and with the capabilities of adtech, it's no wonder they're used for propaganda, to influence elections, etc. None of this spreads "new information" meant…
Does the news media not "psychologically manipulate people to get them to vote or think a certain way?" By your logic, we shouldn't just ban ads, we should ban most journalism and news websites, as they are all also propaganda arms to promote different ideologies. Rather than banning everything that's not "straight facts," from ads to the news media, maybe teaching our population critical thinking is the solution ins…
You cannot out-smart emotional manipulation. Most people who get caught up in cults believe they are too smart to fall for a cult.
> Does the news media not "psychologically manipulate people to get them to vote or think a certain way?" By your logic, we shouldn't just ban ads, we should ban most journalism and news websites, as they are all also propaganda arms to promote different ideologies.
You introduced a straw man argument to argue against. Journalists are subject to norms, pressures, and factcheckers that ads aren’t. Politicians spend big on ads that are deliberately misleading. The oversite that exists either isn’t enforced or is incredibly weak.
One way to consider ad personalization is: should someone grow richer if they know there is trauma in your life? If your friend dies, if you and your partner miscarry, if you were fired from work. Who should be allowed to profit from these events and why?