4 ms·

That's the 90s. I don't think people were happy with that. I wasn't on internet then, so not 100% sure. In general, I see money as a representative of how effec

That's the 90s. I don't think people were happy with that. I wasn't on internet then, so not 100% sure. In general, I see money as a representative of how effective certain company/technology/etc. is and there were no multi billion dollar companies in 90s (though the internet was young at that point). I am pretty sure there are tons of things Google/Facebook/Amazon/etc. can improve but not having any data about user isn't definitely one of those approaches.

EgoIncarnate 9y ago
I think it's a matter of degree, not absolute. You can do targeted advertising without being invasive. If Facebook wants to target ads on their site based on information I have entered in my pubic profile I am okay with that. If Google wants to target ads based on keywords related to what I am searching for at the time I am okay with that. It's when you start tracking across time and across sites and inferring things I may not to have public that I think it gets invasive. Google and Facebook know they are being invasive. They specifically don't allow advertising on things that might trigger people and make them realize how invasive they are being. For example, you can't start retargeting people who searched for information on erectile disfunction with ads for Viagra. People would rightfully get upset about that level invasiveness. Instead of not being invasive, they just don't allow the things that would trigger people. If people in general were made to realize how creepy all the tracking is, laws would require advertisers to change. Given the option I would prefer that not being invasive be the default. If that makes things slightly more expensive, so be it.
EgoIncarnate 9y ago
While companies weren't as huge as some of the ones today, there were plenty of billon dollar companies back in the 90s. Some you probably know, like Microsoft and Apple.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
> I see money as a representative of how effective certain company/technology/etc. is and there were no multi billion dollar companies in 90s In 99, Yahoo bought GeoCities for three billion dollars. Some of it was the dotcom bubble, but there were plenty of massive companies, and this was when most people did not have an internet connection.
rootusrootus 9y ago
There were no multi billion dollar companies in the 90s? Seriously? Microsoft had a market cap of hundreds of billions of dollars by the time 2000 rolled around. You folks who came around after the 90s are pretty late to this party ;-).
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Somewhere in a dark corner at this party, HP is crying to himself.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    HP, Dell and Lenovo are not doing that bad. IBM and Sun might be crying though.
    - hkmurakami 9y ago
      HP is doing horribly compared to the 80's and 90's. SUN sadly has kicked the bucket and his picture is on the table with the punchbowl.
- lurr 9y ago
  The difference was in the 90s you had companies that got those valuations by actually selling technology, instead of privacy hating ad companies.
mbroncano 9y ago
Off the top of my head: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Intel ... I'm sure I'm missing a lot of them

EgoIncarnate 9y ago

I think it's a matter of degree, not absolute. You can do targeted advertising without being invasive. If Facebook wants to target ads on their site based on information I have entered in my pubic profile I am okay with that. If Google wants to target ads based on keywords related to what I am searching for at the time I am okay with that. It's when you start tracking across time and across sites and inferring things I may not to have public that I think it gets invasive. Google and Facebook know they are being invasive. They specifically don't allow advertising on things that might trigger people and make them realize how invasive they are being. For example, you can't start retargeting people who searched for information on erectile disfunction with ads for Viagra. People would rightfully get upset about that level invasiveness. Instead of not being invasive, they just don't allow the things that would trigger people. If people in general were made to realize how creepy all the tracking is, laws would require advertisers to change. Given the option I would prefer that not being invasive be the default. If that makes things slightly more expensive, so be it.

EgoIncarnate 9y ago

While companies weren't as huge as some of the ones today, there were plenty of billon dollar companies back in the 90s. Some you probably know, like Microsoft and Apple.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

> I see money as a representative of how effective certain company/technology/etc. is and there were no multi billion dollar companies in 90s In 99, Yahoo bought GeoCities for three billion dollars. Some of it was the dotcom bubble, but there were plenty of massive companies, and this was when most people did not have an internet connection.

rootusrootus 9y ago

There were no multi billion dollar companies in the 90s? Seriously? Microsoft had a market cap of hundreds of billions of dollars by the time 2000 rolled around. You folks who came around after the 90s are pretty late to this party ;-).

hkmurakami 9y ago
Somewhere in a dark corner at this party, HP is crying to himself.
- user5994461 9y ago
  HP, Dell and Lenovo are not doing that bad. IBM and Sun might be crying though.
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    HP is doing horribly compared to the 80's and 90's. SUN sadly has kicked the bucket and his picture is on the table with the punchbowl.
lurr 9y ago
The difference was in the 90s you had companies that got those valuations by actually selling technology, instead of privacy hating ad companies.

mbroncano 9y ago

Off the top of my head: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Intel ... I'm sure I'm missing a lot of them