5 ms·

For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. Remember, they're showing us ads in

For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways. And frankly I don't mind the ads, by principle, but I do mind that a few companies are able to use them to track us nearly everywhere online without allowing me to review what they're collecting and who is collecting it. Here in the US, we cried tyranny when our security agencies were collecting metadata to monitor threats. And then we gave everything we had to Facebook and Google and didn't bat an eye as they sold us to anyone who pays.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
I think the problem is at a much higher level - why do companies have this motivation. It's because we've structured our society (in Western Democracies) so that people grow rich if they can trick you in to buying stuff. The better they are at tricking you, the more they earn. The higher the price compared to the cost, the more they earn. The lower the longevity of the goods, the more chance to sell to you again. Many of the incentives are towards fooling people rather than creating useful goods that enrich society with minimal environmental impact and maximum longevity. It's unsustainable and leads to powerful (ie rich) people who are incentivised to parasitically feed on poorer people.
- wybiral 9y ago
  I think the problem is at a much lower level... This is the nature of competition and evolution. It's the natural progression of a game called "maximize the resources" where there are no rules against exploitation. Which is why I think we need more regulation in this particular area to clearly define the rules we want everyone to play by.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    What do you mean by "maximise resources", currently Western Capitalism is working towards wasting resources and externalising costs, and marginalising resources, that's going to break with massive environmental and social consequences.
    - wybiral 9y ago
      I mean on an individual basis. And I'm skeptical about your assessment that this is merely a problem with "Western Capitalism". This is a problem of any system that doesn't have proper regulations to define the rules of the game in a fair way.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        I'm not restricting the domain because i know it doesn't apply elsewhere, only because I'm not familiar with the nuances of other systems.
      - ibz 9y ago
        Who puts regulations in place about how many deer it is "fair" for a wolf to kill? And yet, the system has been running for longer than we are around to know about it. It is however when the humans tried to "regulate" the wolf population in Scotland, for example, that the forests were lost due to deer overpopulation. So I would argue that less regulations make the system regulate itself, which it does better than humans can do.
        wybiral 9y ago
        Fair enough. But animals don't have to follow the set of ethics/morals that we seem to value as a species. I'm not saying that this system wouldn't be more prolific or that regulations would somehow cause it to evolve quicker or something. I'm saying that if we want to to work in a way that we believe is ethical and just, then we need to regulate it otherwise it will carry on in a predatory way.
        skybrian 9y ago
        Nature doesn't care whether Scotland has forests or not. Natural events can have catastrophic consequences on the environment. Ice ages and meteor strikes are pretty darn catastrophic. Invasive species were wiping out other species before humans came along (at a much lower rate). Any balance you see in nature will only last until something big enough happens to change it. Humans have preferences about the environment we live in. When there are things we like and want to preserve, it's up to us to do something about it.
BeetleB 9y ago
>For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. "fair" is practically a weasel word. It doesn't have a universal standard. It doesn't mean anything until you explain what you consider to be fair. I once read a book on negotiations that called it "the F-word" - it was warning you to be wary of people using the word against you. Think of this as a transaction between two parties doing business together. When business A is making a deal with business B, then A is not entitled to know how much money B will make out of it. It's perfectly fine to ask, but B not answering is very much within the rules (and is the norm). It is your job to do your own research to figure out how valuable your information is to them. I also often see an attitude of "They make $20/year from the information I give them. So I should have the option to pay them $20/year for not tracking me." No business deal works that way. Each party sets their own requirements. If you demand that they offer paid services to stop tracking you, they get to say "No - you're welcome to use someone else's service if they give you that kind of a deal" Finally, the way negotiations work: The focus will not be on what they make from your money, but how much you are willing to pay for the services you receive. The majority of people I know will not pay $10/mo for their email service. So the fact that Google may make $30/year from your use of Gmail is irrelevant. This is your BATNA. >Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways. And in how many ways are they paying you in services? Far more, I imagine. >Here in the US, we cried tyranny when our security agencies were collecting metadata to monitor threats. And then we gave everything we had to Facebook and Google and didn't bat an eye as they sold us to anyone who pays. We probably hang out in different crowds, but while government monitoring did make the news, the percentage of people I personally know who cared about it was less than those I know who say "I'm using a service other than the one provided by Google because they're already tracking me in so many ways". BTW, although I use some Google services, by and large I do not. I do not actively use Gmail. It was very difficult for me to get used to the idea of letting them get to me via Android. I don't use my account on Youtube. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't use Twitter. I pay for my own email and web services. I tend to have privacy extensions on my browser. I don't use Whatsapp. My life is not at all miserable.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Collecting data on us, and showing us ads are not TWO different things. It's the same thing... If they stop collecting data, they don't still get to keep the same ad revenue. The ads are only worth the amount there are because of the hyper specific information you can target ads with. If you get rid of that, than the ad model falls apart. They might still be worth...something, but if it was just about anonymous eyeballs, probably every ad would just be for Coke and Coca Cola would pay extremely little for it.
- wybiral 9y ago
  No, they are TWO different things. Yes, data can be used to improve the effectiveness of advertisements but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. There are also data brokers who are in the business of buying and selling data not specifically for advertisement. And before the ability to track everything you click on, search for, talk about with friends online there were industries built around advertisement that still offered targeting to some extent. Ads can target users by classifying different channels/outlets for different purposes. So a website about gardening can offer ads for gardening supplies, etc. All without having to assemble massive databases about us. There's a difference, don't let the data brokers confuse you.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

I think the problem is at a much higher level - why do companies have this motivation. It's because we've structured our society (in Western Democracies) so that people grow rich if they can trick you in to buying stuff. The better they are at tricking you, the more they earn. The higher the price compared to the cost, the more they earn. The lower the longevity of the goods, the more chance to sell to you again. Many of the incentives are towards fooling people rather than creating useful goods that enrich society with minimal environmental impact and maximum longevity. It's unsustainable and leads to powerful (ie rich) people who are incentivised to parasitically feed on poorer people.

wybiral 9y ago
I think the problem is at a much lower level... This is the nature of competition and evolution. It's the natural progression of a game called "maximize the resources" where there are no rules against exploitation. Which is why I think we need more regulation in this particular area to clearly define the rules we want everyone to play by.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  What do you mean by "maximise resources", currently Western Capitalism is working towards wasting resources and externalising costs, and marginalising resources, that's going to break with massive environmental and social consequences.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    I mean on an individual basis. And I'm skeptical about your assessment that this is merely a problem with "Western Capitalism". This is a problem of any system that doesn't have proper regulations to define the rules of the game in a fair way.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      I'm not restricting the domain because i know it doesn't apply elsewhere, only because I'm not familiar with the nuances of other systems.
    - ibz 9y ago
      Who puts regulations in place about how many deer it is "fair" for a wolf to kill? And yet, the system has been running for longer than we are around to know about it. It is however when the humans tried to "regulate" the wolf population in Scotland, for example, that the forests were lost due to deer overpopulation. So I would argue that less regulations make the system regulate itself, which it does better than humans can do.
      - wybiral 9y ago
        Fair enough. But animals don't have to follow the set of ethics/morals that we seem to value as a species. I'm not saying that this system wouldn't be more prolific or that regulations would somehow cause it to evolve quicker or something. I'm saying that if we want to to work in a way that we believe is ethical and just, then we need to regulate it otherwise it will carry on in a predatory way.
      - skybrian 9y ago
        Nature doesn't care whether Scotland has forests or not. Natural events can have catastrophic consequences on the environment. Ice ages and meteor strikes are pretty darn catastrophic. Invasive species were wiping out other species before humans came along (at a much lower rate). Any balance you see in nature will only last until something big enough happens to change it. Humans have preferences about the environment we live in. When there are things we like and want to preserve, it's up to us to do something about it.

BeetleB 9y ago

>For some services I agree with your sentiment. But we don't have metrics so there's no way to know if this is a fair deal. "fair" is practically a weasel word. It doesn't have a universal standard. It doesn't mean anything until you explain what you consider to be fair. I once read a book on negotiations that called it "the F-word" - it was warning you to be wary of people using the word against you. Think of this as a transaction between two parties doing business together. When business A is making a deal with business B, then A is not entitled to know how much money B will make out of it. It's perfectly fine to ask, but B not answering is very much within the rules (and is the norm). It is your job to do your own research to figure out how valuable your information is to them. I also often see an attitude of "They make $20/year from the information I give them. So I should have the option to pay them $20/year for not tracking me." No business deal works that way. Each party sets their own requirements. If you demand that they offer paid services to stop tracking you, they get to say "No - you're welcome to use someone else's service if they give you that kind of a deal" Finally, the way negotiations work: The focus will not be on what they make from your money, but how much you are willing to pay for the services you receive. The majority of people I know will not pay $10/mo for their email service. So the fact that Google may make $30/year from your use of Gmail is irrelevant. This is your BATNA. >Remember, they're showing us ads in addition to collecting volumes of information on us, so we're paying in two ways. And in how many ways are they paying you in services? Far more, I imagine. >Here in the US, we cried tyranny when our security agencies were collecting metadata to monitor threats. And then we gave everything we had to Facebook and Google and didn't bat an eye as they sold us to anyone who pays. We probably hang out in different crowds, but while government monitoring did make the news, the percentage of people I personally know who cared about it was less than those I know who say "I'm using a service other than the one provided by Google because they're already tracking me in so many ways". BTW, although I use some Google services, by and large I do not. I do not actively use Gmail. It was very difficult for me to get used to the idea of letting them get to me via Android. I don't use my account on Youtube. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't use Twitter. I pay for my own email and web services. I tend to have privacy extensions on my browser. I don't use Whatsapp. My life is not at all miserable.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

Collecting data on us, and showing us ads are not TWO different things. It's the same thing... If they stop collecting data, they don't still get to keep the same ad revenue. The ads are only worth the amount there are because of the hyper specific information you can target ads with. If you get rid of that, than the ad model falls apart. They might still be worth...something, but if it was just about anonymous eyeballs, probably every ad would just be for Coke and Coca Cola would pay extremely little for it.

wybiral 9y ago
No, they are TWO different things. Yes, data can be used to improve the effectiveness of advertisements but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. There are also data brokers who are in the business of buying and selling data not specifically for advertisement. And before the ability to track everything you click on, search for, talk about with friends online there were industries built around advertisement that still offered targeting to some extent. Ads can target users by classifying different channels/outlets for different purposes. So a website about gardening can offer ads for gardening supplies, etc. All without having to assemble massive databases about us. There's a difference, don't let the data brokers confuse you.