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

We accepted surveillance as default

vivianvoss.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 159 posts

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#91

Post by like_any_other »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #74

Comparing digital ads to the Stasi is just peak Western snowflake behavior, I'm sorry. There are many imaginary arguments about harm in the article, with precisely zero actual examples or cases. Data brokers, buy data, stalk somebody. Can you share at least something? No, it's all just hand waving. Because none of these people can offer any. The fact that the author still thinks Cambridge Analytica meant something sa…

Do you think if the Stasi, or someone like them, ever come into power, they'll just ignore all this extra surveillance we've built for free?

Not really a hypothetical - look at China and Russia, or Saudi Arabia [1]. I'll let others make the case to add the US and European countries to that list - not because I don't believe they belong on the list, but just because I'm too lazy to meet the higher bar of evidence that goes with going against groupthink.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitter#...

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#92

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

colesantiago wrote: post #87
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe we're better off without websites that only exist to make money.

How do website owners pay for server costs if you think they shouldn't make money? Should everyone be in a loss when they run a website?

i manage to do so using money i make elsewhere. the information i put on the internet is either of benefit to people or a matter of vanity. i don't afford special concern to people who want to use the internet for profit.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#93

Post by PaulHoule »

I know there is evidence like

    Apple ATT (iOS 14.5, April 2021). 15-25% opt-in. 
    -$10B Meta revenue in 2022 (CFO   David Wehner)
But it sure looks to me like personalized ads are a paper tiger. I mean it seems like 30% of the ads I see on Facebook and YouTube are just transparent scams that they could serve me without any profiling. For instance for a week I have been in heavy rotation of an ad on Facebook which obviously looks like a crude attempt to imitate a notification in the Facebook API. After I click on it the page starts playing sound and tries to scare me that my computer has been hacked and I have to take some action. I reported the ad to Facebook but it shouldn't have stayed up a whole week, for all I know somebody is still seeing it.

It's so rare that I see an ad that is targeted to me at all so what gives? Am I really so unmarketable to? It's not like i don't buy cameras, food, clothes, video games, and all sorts of things. But all i see is retargeted ads for stuff I already bought.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#96

Post by sosborn »

PaulHoule wrote: post #93

I know there is evidence like Apple ATT (iOS 14.5, April 2021). 15-25% opt-in. -$10B Meta revenue in 2022 (CFO David Wehner) But it sure looks to me like personalized ads are a paper tiger. I mean it seems like 30% of the ads I see on Facebook and YouTube are just transparent scams that they could serve me without any profiling. For instance for a week I have been in heavy rotation of an ad on Facebook which obviousl…

> all i see is retargeted ads for stuff I already bought.

IMO, nothing exposes the folly behind targeted ads as much as this.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#98

Post by johannes1234321 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #93

I know there is evidence like Apple ATT (iOS 14.5, April 2021). 15-25% opt-in. -$10B Meta revenue in 2022 (CFO David Wehner) But it sure looks to me like personalized ads are a paper tiger. I mean it seems like 30% of the ads I see on Facebook and YouTube are just transparent scams that they could serve me without any profiling. For instance for a week I have been in heavy rotation of an ad on Facebook which obviousl…

The fact that some people receive badly targeted ads isn't a prove for the surveillance system not working.

The question regarding ads is how well targeted campaigns are being paid for. But the ad space is relatively harmless.

It becomes relevant when not talking about ads, but surpression of citizens by state actors. If the data is being used to identified potential targets for some measures. These measures can involve drawing election districts, deciding where to build the sewage plant or library or where search for people to deport and how to influence them in political campaigns. Some margin of error has varying impact there, but it can help a lot to reduce manual selection by a lot.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#99

Post by pizzly »

nazgulsenpai wrote: post #58
jonahx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't they? It's an additional income stream. If customers cared, the additional income from being someone who didn't surveil could outstrip the income stream from surveilling.

I agree with you, and if you frequent tech circles you'd be under impression that the masses prioritize lack of surveillance and privacy. In my experience with IRL acquaintances, although anecdotal, exactly 0% of people I have spoken to where it's come up in conversation care at all about privacy or surveillance in general with the old "nothing to hide" fallacy.

I know its won't solve everything but couldn't we teach digital hygiene at school and its importance. For myself I remember in English at high school being taught how different methods of advertising worked and that stuck with me.

Re: We accepted surveillance as default

#100

Post by pizzly »

HWR_14 wrote: post #26
ourmandave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should pass laws that require the weird clicking gymnastics to opt-in to tracking. Instead of the default opt-in hidden in the terms and conditions nobody reads.

The EU did that and people still bitch about GDPR banners on websites.

The law had good intention but bad implementation. Also the law takes so long to change. Once it became obvious that companies would bypass it by having clicking gymnastics they needed to quickly update the law saying that it should only take one click to opt out.
Post reply on HN