12 ms·

When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. After that, I assume anything I'm doing on the internet is

When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. After that, I assume anything I'm doing on the internet is being data mined for advertising or some other source of revenue.

alex- 9y ago
I think most people, at some level, know this and accept it. I think the shock comes when you think how long this information is kept for, and what that means. i.e. each year they can advertise age appropriate birthday presents, a few years from now they might get adverts for children party suppliers. As they grow up college saving funds, colleges, trips to Disney land, first cars can all be targeted to you at just the right time.
- rectang 9y ago
  The shock is that it's exploitable by political actors who people are opposed to. That's what's getting attention these days.
  - jerf 9y ago
    I just hope people, including a lot of people reading this, remember this for longer than two or three news cycles. Just because Not-Trump gets into power someday doesn't mean that he or she won't be followed by Not-Not-Trump. In fact, I guarantee the eventual rise to power of Not-Not-Trump, because the only thing that would stop it is if Not-Trump successfully institutes totalitarianism, hardly a win. Our vigilance on this matter can't depend on how much we collectively do or do not like the people currently in power. That was a big mistake Silicon Valley made over the past decade and the bill is coming due in a big way.
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      >I just hope people, including a lot of people reading this, remember this for longer than two or three news cycles. Name one thing that people remember for more than 2 news cycles.
      - wilsonnb 9y ago
        Pretty sure we've remembered 9/11 and Pearl harbor for more than two news cycles.
        IIAOPSW 9y ago
        So two events in ~80 years. 1 event every 40 years. Here's a better game to prove my point: what happened 5 news cycles ago? Do you remember? What were the headlines in January/February this year?
        wilsonnb 9y ago
        I only listed those two events because they were so obvious that I was surprised you hadn't considered them. There are, of course, far more events that people remember. As far what was happening in January/February: Pretty sure the government shut down at some point, I think that was around then. I also remember a lot of news about the stock market breaking records and some post analysis on the tax bill which I think had already passed by then. I could have that timeline wrong on that though. I think the Alabama Senate election was around then. That might have been earlier though, but I think there were still headlines about it in January. That's all I remember off the top of my head. I follow political news more closely than other news lately.
- thrillgore 9y ago
  People won't realize how bad it is because nothing has tried to contrast the ethics and outcomes of our inter-connected society. It took Black Mirror to make us cynical about the onward march of any non-defense era technology.
knz 9y ago
There are multiple vectors for them obtaining that information - location records from your phone, receipts for parking ramps at a hospital, any mention about a pregnancy or baby on social media in the past (pregnancy announcement etc), image recognition of the newborn, registering for baby related gifts, buying pregnancy/baby related items (books, classes, equipment etc), a third party selling your information (health insurance maybe?), or using your web search history. It's safe to assume that much of the data we all leak is being mined for revenue.
logicallee 9y ago
Would you rather see ads for cat food? (Even though you don't have a cat.) This is not a rhetorical question: please answer it. The reason for this question is that even though you don't have a cat lots of people do! It's absolutely not a false dichotomy. Either people who have no cats must see cat food advertisements (bad choice), or cat food advertisements must be shown to people who probably have a cat (better choice). There's really nothing in between. This is the world we live in, and you should prefer to see baby diaper ads vs cat food ads, when you do have a baby but don't have a cat. The statistical number of cats or babies is irrelevant. As you may know, Google is pretty good (not perfect) about not allowing keyword targeting that gets down to individual people so the privacy implications really are pretty limited. - That said, I have a funny story to share. (About adapting to this world.) I am learning a foreign language and I decided to watch baby cartoons in that language. But before I did, I thought to myself, "Okay if I start searching YouTube for cartoons for 1 year olds, pretty soon Google is going to decide that I'm a new mother and I'll see nothing but baby cartoons in my feed for the next 5 years." I was sure enough in my reasoning that I went ahead and created a brand new Google account for the express purpose of being able to pollute its YouTube feed. I only watch stuff related to that language learning on that account. This had the exact effect that I wanted. That youtube became absolutely awesome for spending focused time on my language learning, using all sorts of related videos. It includes people documenting what life in that country is like for tourists and foreigners, it includes foreign-language teachers' channels, it includes related cartoons and films at a good level for me, it includes political speeches from that country subtitled in English. I couldn't be happier with the result. You know those acknowledgments we've been clicking through for the past few years by Google saying "Hey!! We're doing this. READ THIS"? I think it makes what they do pretty above-board. As a consumer we're able to adapt to this, but it's not something I have any problem with. (Disclaimer: I indirectly contributed to Google in the past but not now, I would definitely list it as a disclaimer if it were happening now but I remember that it changed how I wrote about Google especially when I was the most critical of them, so I think it's worth mentioning still. I am a bit nicer when I'm really pissed off at them as a consumer - but this is not the case in this instance.) --- EDIT: I carefully edited this as it is falling to -1. I stand by the sentiments in this comment: they are correct. Downvoters are wrong.
- 9y ago
stvswn 9y ago
Google does not use the content of your emails to target ads: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 Ads where? Do you just mean display ads on the web? If so, your browser likely ended up on a list for diaper ads by some other means. Top of mind: - Did ever add a baby-related product to a shopping cart on a retail site? - Did you visit baby-related websites? Less likely, but possible,if your browser cookie was linked to other personal information by 3rd party data brokers: - Do you use a loyalty card at a physical store? Did you suddenly buy baby stuff for the first time? - Did you return a product registration card for a carseat or something like that? The company my resell their customer lists.
- tantalor 9y ago
  That is a new policy circa 2017 http://adage.com/article/digital/google-stop-reading-emails-gmail-ads/309558/ http://adage.com/article/digital/google-stop-reading-emails-...
foobaw 9y ago
Okay, but couldn't this be good for some people? If they see cheap diaper ads, they might be motivated to buy them. I know the implication is negative in terms of privacy, but it has its benefits if it could actually solve problems and provide value to the majority.
- taneq 9y ago
  That's the 'for' argument, made by advertisers. Oh, we're just trying to more effectively let you know about the best deals for all the stuff you need! The problem is, though, that any form of bargaining (and sales is bargaining) is an information game. The more they know about you, the worse a deal you will get. One recent real example was the advertisers targeting women on their periods. Taking it further, imagine a liquor company finding out that you've just lost a family member and flooding you with ads for alcohol. The more they know about you, the worse you get screwed.
- Retra 9y ago
  Like a person with a newborn child doesn't know they want cheap diapers or something? What is this?
ufmace 9y ago
That's amateur level stuff for modern marketing, have you seen this article back from 2012 on how Target can figure out that you're pregnant and send you ads for maternity stuff before you've told anyone at all, just by watching what you buy? https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.... Given how Target shut that guy up, you have to figure they're doing even more along those lines nowadays.
BeetleB 9y ago
>When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. Your comment is making me feel really, really old. Have people forgotten Gmail's history? Gmail is not that old. When it was new, what you are pointing out was in the news. It was all over the news. To the point of members of Congress commenting on it. It was heavily debated. Google was very open about the fact that they were doing it. Google was the first (major) email provider to offer 1 GB of mail (well over the usual paltry 50MB that was the norm). Everyone asked "How can they afford it?" And it was very much in the open that it was being paid for ads, and that Google will mine your emails and provide you with targeted ads. I remember while reading an email on Gmail back in 2004/2005 there was a very obvious targeted ad based on the content of that email. I honestly do not mean this as a criticism, but I am really, really surprised that a HN poster was surprised by this. That Gmail scans (or scanned) emails and uses them for ads is almost part of their identity. It's like being surprised that there are ads in a newspaper.

alex- 9y ago

I think most people, at some level, know this and accept it. I think the shock comes when you think how long this information is kept for, and what that means. i.e. each year they can advertise age appropriate birthday presents, a few years from now they might get adverts for children party suppliers. As they grow up college saving funds, colleges, trips to Disney land, first cars can all be targeted to you at just the right time.

rectang 9y ago
The shock is that it's exploitable by political actors who people are opposed to. That's what's getting attention these days.
- jerf 9y ago
  I just hope people, including a lot of people reading this, remember this for longer than two or three news cycles. Just because Not-Trump gets into power someday doesn't mean that he or she won't be followed by Not-Not-Trump. In fact, I guarantee the eventual rise to power of Not-Not-Trump, because the only thing that would stop it is if Not-Trump successfully institutes totalitarianism, hardly a win. Our vigilance on this matter can't depend on how much we collectively do or do not like the people currently in power. That was a big mistake Silicon Valley made over the past decade and the bill is coming due in a big way.
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    >I just hope people, including a lot of people reading this, remember this for longer than two or three news cycles. Name one thing that people remember for more than 2 news cycles.
    - wilsonnb 9y ago
      Pretty sure we've remembered 9/11 and Pearl harbor for more than two news cycles.
      - IIAOPSW 9y ago
        So two events in ~80 years. 1 event every 40 years. Here's a better game to prove my point: what happened 5 news cycles ago? Do you remember? What were the headlines in January/February this year?
        wilsonnb 9y ago
        I only listed those two events because they were so obvious that I was surprised you hadn't considered them. There are, of course, far more events that people remember. As far what was happening in January/February: Pretty sure the government shut down at some point, I think that was around then. I also remember a lot of news about the stock market breaking records and some post analysis on the tax bill which I think had already passed by then. I could have that timeline wrong on that though. I think the Alabama Senate election was around then. That might have been earlier though, but I think there were still headlines about it in January. That's all I remember off the top of my head. I follow political news more closely than other news lately.
thrillgore 9y ago
People won't realize how bad it is because nothing has tried to contrast the ethics and outcomes of our inter-connected society. It took Black Mirror to make us cynical about the onward march of any non-defense era technology.

knz 9y ago

There are multiple vectors for them obtaining that information - location records from your phone, receipts for parking ramps at a hospital, any mention about a pregnancy or baby on social media in the past (pregnancy announcement etc), image recognition of the newborn, registering for baby related gifts, buying pregnancy/baby related items (books, classes, equipment etc), a third party selling your information (health insurance maybe?), or using your web search history. It's safe to assume that much of the data we all leak is being mined for revenue.

logicallee 9y ago

Would you rather see ads for cat food? (Even though you don't have a cat.) This is not a rhetorical question: please answer it. The reason for this question is that even though you don't have a cat lots of people do! It's absolutely not a false dichotomy. Either people who have no cats must see cat food advertisements (bad choice), or cat food advertisements must be shown to people who probably have a cat (better choice). There's really nothing in between. This is the world we live in, and you should prefer to see baby diaper ads vs cat food ads, when you do have a baby but don't have a cat. The statistical number of cats or babies is irrelevant. As you may know, Google is pretty good (not perfect) about not allowing keyword targeting that gets down to individual people so the privacy implications really are pretty limited. - That said, I have a funny story to share. (About adapting to this world.) I am learning a foreign language and I decided to watch baby cartoons in that language. But before I did, I thought to myself, "Okay if I start searching YouTube for cartoons for 1 year olds, pretty soon Google is going to decide that I'm a new mother and I'll see nothing but baby cartoons in my feed for the next 5 years." I was sure enough in my reasoning that I went ahead and created a brand new Google account for the express purpose of being able to pollute its YouTube feed. I only watch stuff related to that language learning on that account. This had the exact effect that I wanted. That youtube became absolutely awesome for spending focused time on my language learning, using all sorts of related videos. It includes people documenting what life in that country is like for tourists and foreigners, it includes foreign-language teachers' channels, it includes related cartoons and films at a good level for me, it includes political speeches from that country subtitled in English. I couldn't be happier with the result. You know those acknowledgments we've been clicking through for the past few years by Google saying "Hey!! We're doing this. READ THIS"? I think it makes what they do pretty above-board. As a consumer we're able to adapt to this, but it's not something I have any problem with. (Disclaimer: I indirectly contributed to Google in the past but not now, I would definitely list it as a disclaimer if it were happening now but I remember that it changed how I wrote about Google especially when I was the most critical of them, so I think it's worth mentioning still. I am a bit nicer when I'm really pissed off at them as a consumer - but this is not the case in this instance.) --- EDIT: I carefully edited this as it is falling to -1. I stand by the sentiments in this comment: they are correct. Downvoters are wrong.

9y ago

stvswn 9y ago

Google does not use the content of your emails to target ads: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603 Ads where? Do you just mean display ads on the web? If so, your browser likely ended up on a list for diaper ads by some other means. Top of mind: - Did ever add a baby-related product to a shopping cart on a retail site? - Did you visit baby-related websites? Less likely, but possible,if your browser cookie was linked to other personal information by 3rd party data brokers: - Do you use a loyalty card at a physical store? Did you suddenly buy baby stuff for the first time? - Did you return a product registration card for a carseat or something like that? The company my resell their customer lists.

tantalor 9y ago
That is a new policy circa 2017 http://adage.com/article/digital/google-stop-reading-emails-gmail-ads/309558/ http://adage.com/article/digital/google-stop-reading-emails-...

foobaw 9y ago

Okay, but couldn't this be good for some people? If they see cheap diaper ads, they might be motivated to buy them. I know the implication is negative in terms of privacy, but it has its benefits if it could actually solve problems and provide value to the majority.

taneq 9y ago
That's the 'for' argument, made by advertisers. Oh, we're just trying to more effectively let you know about the best deals for all the stuff you need! The problem is, though, that any form of bargaining (and sales is bargaining) is an information game. The more they know about you, the worse a deal you will get. One recent real example was the advertisers targeting women on their periods. Taking it further, imagine a liquor company finding out that you've just lost a family member and flooding you with ads for alcohol. The more they know about you, the worse you get screwed.
Retra 9y ago
Like a person with a newborn child doesn't know they want cheap diapers or something? What is this?

ufmace 9y ago

That's amateur level stuff for modern marketing, have you seen this article back from 2012 on how Target can figure out that you're pregnant and send you ads for maternity stuff before you've told anyone at all, just by watching what you buy? https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.... Given how Target shut that guy up, you have to figure they're doing even more along those lines nowadays.

BeetleB 9y ago

>When our daughter was born, and I sent an announcement via GMail, I started seeing ads for diapers. Your comment is making me feel really, really old. Have people forgotten Gmail's history? Gmail is not that old. When it was new, what you are pointing out was in the news. It was all over the news. To the point of members of Congress commenting on it. It was heavily debated. Google was very open about the fact that they were doing it. Google was the first (major) email provider to offer 1 GB of mail (well over the usual paltry 50MB that was the norm). Everyone asked "How can they afford it?" And it was very much in the open that it was being paid for ads, and that Google will mine your emails and provide you with targeted ads. I remember while reading an email on Gmail back in 2004/2005 there was a very obvious targeted ad based on the content of that email. I honestly do not mean this as a criticism, but I am really, really surprised that a HN poster was surprised by this. That Gmail scans (or scanned) emails and uses them for ads is almost part of their identity. It's like being surprised that there are ads in a newspaper.