4 ms·

This is really missing the point, because if I objected to Google mining my private conversations to advertise to me I wouldn't use Gmail. The problem with ads

by waqf 10y ago

This is really missing the point, because if I objected to Google mining my private conversations to advertise to me I wouldn't use Gmail. The problem with ads on Google Home this week is serious, but it isn't related to "Google spying on me" at all. It's to do with the fact that reading out ads in my home is super creepy, despite — in fact, because of — the fact that the ads aren't targeted to me.

sandworm101 10y ago
Non-targeted ads creap you out? When google shows me ads for diebtic test strips, hair dye and kitty litter i rest assured that Google isnt tracking me, that they know so little about my habits that they think those appropriate ads. (Then i get angry with my adblocking tech and set about making sure i never see any kitty litter ads ever again.)
- waqf 10y ago
  Sufficiently targeted ads are indistinguishable from honest search results: that is, if Google gives me the perfect result then I don't care what money changes hands behind the scenes (although yes, I do still care what's being done with my personal data to achieve that).
  - ferentchak 10y ago
    There is a main difference. Instead of sorting those results on the best fit for what I am looking for they are sorting them based upon the highest bidder. You are right that sometimes these results are similar but these days when I ask Google a question about products I pretty much only get to know about the ones that were willing to pay Google to inform me of them. Great for Google but only ok for me and the product company.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      Wait, you always get organic results, no?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    You have it all backwards. If the money that changes hands doesn't influence the search result, then the money won't change hands. An advertisement customer won't pay in order to not influence what the audience gets to see. Also, the theoretical possibility that money doesn't necessarily influence decisions is not exactly a good reason to accept the risk that it does after all. If that were a sensible argument, you could just throw out all anti-corruption legislation, because it is very much theoretically possible for a bribed person to still make a decision that's not influenced by the bribery.
yosamino 10y ago
> because if I objected to Google mining my private conversations to advertise to me I wouldn't use Gmail. This incorrect and short-sighted. The private conversations that you have are with someone else, who might have not opted into Google mining their conversation. In that sense your conversation partners' only option to "opt-out" of using gmail is to stop conversing with you, which I find to be a perverse choice.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  I guess it should be noted, though, that the choice being perverse doesn't mean the outcome is obvious. I, for one, generally will just refrain from contacting you if the only contact info I have is a gmail address, if it's not exceptionally important for me.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - joshuamorton 10y ago
    Its worth pointing out that this doesn't help you much. I have 3-4 email addresses, from @gmail to @myuniversity to @mywebsite. I send and receive all of my mail from a Inbox though.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      Yeah, I am aware that I might be misplacing my trust and share things with people who end up sharing it with third parties, violating my trust ... your point being?
      - joshuamorton 10y ago
        Well I didn't really have a point to be made, just a general informational statement. However, claiming that I'm violating your trust if you send me an email is a bit of a strong statement, don't you think.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
> It's to do with the fact that reading out ads in my home is super creepy, despite — in fact, because of — the fact that the ads aren't targeted to me. IMHO: Reading out non-targeted ads in my home: annoying Reading out targeted ads in my home: annoying AND creepy
jamiesonbecker 10y ago
Radio stations do precisely this, and they're decidedly non-creepy.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Doesn't Home cost money though? Radio stations are essentially free
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Doesn't Home cost money though? The hardware costs money, just as a radio does. The service is free, just as radio stations are.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      But anyone can make a radio out of whatever parts they want, so they are essentially free. AFAIK, there are no "home builds" for the Home?

by waqf 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

Non-targeted ads creap you out? When google shows me ads for diebtic test strips, hair dye and kitty litter i rest assured that Google isnt tracking me, that they know so little about my habits that they think those appropriate ads. (Then i get angry with my adblocking tech and set about making sure i never see any kitty litter ads ever again.)

waqf 10y ago
Sufficiently targeted ads are indistinguishable from honest search results: that is, if Google gives me the perfect result then I don't care what money changes hands behind the scenes (although yes, I do still care what's being done with my personal data to achieve that).
- ferentchak 10y ago
  There is a main difference. Instead of sorting those results on the best fit for what I am looking for they are sorting them based upon the highest bidder. You are right that sometimes these results are similar but these days when I ask Google a question about products I pretty much only get to know about the ones that were willing to pay Google to inform me of them. Great for Google but only ok for me and the product company.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    Wait, you always get organic results, no?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  You have it all backwards. If the money that changes hands doesn't influence the search result, then the money won't change hands. An advertisement customer won't pay in order to not influence what the audience gets to see. Also, the theoretical possibility that money doesn't necessarily influence decisions is not exactly a good reason to accept the risk that it does after all. If that were a sensible argument, you could just throw out all anti-corruption legislation, because it is very much theoretically possible for a bribed person to still make a decision that's not influenced by the bribery.

yosamino 10y ago

> because if I objected to Google mining my private conversations to advertise to me I wouldn't use Gmail. This incorrect and short-sighted. The private conversations that you have are with someone else, who might have not opted into Google mining their conversation. In that sense your conversation partners' only option to "opt-out" of using gmail is to stop conversing with you, which I find to be a perverse choice.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
I guess it should be noted, though, that the choice being perverse doesn't mean the outcome is obvious. I, for one, generally will just refrain from contacting you if the only contact info I have is a gmail address, if it's not exceptionally important for me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuamorton 10y ago
  Its worth pointing out that this doesn't help you much. I have 3-4 email addresses, from @gmail to @myuniversity to @mywebsite. I send and receive all of my mail from a Inbox though.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    Yeah, I am aware that I might be misplacing my trust and share things with people who end up sharing it with third parties, violating my trust ... your point being?
    - joshuamorton 10y ago
      Well I didn't really have a point to be made, just a general informational statement. However, claiming that I'm violating your trust if you send me an email is a bit of a strong statement, don't you think.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

> It's to do with the fact that reading out ads in my home is super creepy, despite — in fact, because of — the fact that the ads aren't targeted to me. IMHO: Reading out non-targeted ads in my home: annoying Reading out targeted ads in my home: annoying AND creepy

jamiesonbecker 10y ago

Radio stations do precisely this, and they're decidedly non-creepy.

CaptSpify 10y ago
Doesn't Home cost money though? Radio stations are essentially free
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Doesn't Home cost money though? The hardware costs money, just as a radio does. The service is free, just as radio stations are.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    But anyone can make a radio out of whatever parts they want, so they are essentially free. AFAIK, there are no "home builds" for the Home?