5 ms·

It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web u

It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware". Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter. They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday [2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I guess you can stand steadfastly behind the position that "nobody cares because there are 2 billion users", and ignore the falling metrics for user engagement [3], and the protests (see the picture at the top of [2]), and the senate hearing, and the media coverage, and the millions of Ghostery and Disconnect users who've gone to the trouble of searching for and installing extensions specifically to block tracking, and Firefox's built-in tracking protection. Sure, aside from all that, nobody cares. But this isn't an issue that's going away yet, no matter how much you want it to. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-web/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-... [2]: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-after-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-2018-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-a... [3]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings...

downandout 9y ago
As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have contributed to a decline in engagement prior to the media-driven "scandal," but at least at this point the recent headlines have had no discernible impact. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of your argument. Most of the 26% of users that have installed ad blockers (including myself) have done it not so much to thwart tracking, but to put an end to the poor user experience that many intrusive ads create on web pages. Visit any local newspaper site with your ad blocker disabled to view what I'm talking about. Many sites aren't even usable without an ad blocker these days. I am in the ad blocking-for-user-experience camp...I could care less about tracking. In fact, for the ads that I do see, I like them being highly targeted. I went for years without clicking on a single ad on the web. Only in the last year or two have I found them relevant enough to click every now and then. Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks, I don't feel any violation of my privacy either. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-committee-hearing-no-facebook-user-dropoff.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-c...
- Intermernet 9y ago
  >I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your education level, your family size and many other details.
  - downandout 9y ago
    And what exactly is wrong with that? So some marketers know that someone in the world likes to do X, lives in a certain place, likes to buy things, etc. It's not tied to your specific identity - it's just a collection of data. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      In the first place, your repeated assertion that you are anonymous in the data is wrong. A combination of zip code, date of birth, and gender will uniquely identify 87% of the people in the country [1], and I assure you advertisers have far more detailed information than that. In some cases, they have your DNA. [2] Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still proudly proclaims, on their home page, that they "[use] data to change audience behavior." Ads on Facebook are being used by different groups to inflame political tensions [3]. The tracking widgets used on nearly every site you visit now means that some company, somewhere, knows everything you're interested in. They are in the business of using that information against you, to their benefit, whether it's in crafting sensational stories with clickbait headlines to get more of your attention, or selling you products you don't need by preying on your insecurities, or just trading it for money to other companies who will use it in new and creative ways -- like CA, who specialize in tilting voting behavior. [4] Thirdly, you're counting on advertising firms having perfect security and never accidentally giving your information away to people who shouldn't have it. Advertising companies just don't have good history when it comes to data security [5] [6] [7]. People seem happy to ignore the ramifications of all of this, because it's not like they're feeling physical pain or discomfort or noticing any other immediate negative effect when more tracking data is collected or they see another ad. But this is a form of psychological warfare, and at least some of this stuff is designed to corrupt your thinking, to get more of your attention and change your opinions about things and convince you that it's all very harmless. We've strayed away from tracking data and into advertising, but they are two sides of the same coin. [1]: http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html [2]: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-use-your-dna-to-target-ads/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-us... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-divisive-facebook-ads-bought-by-suspicious-groups-study-idUSKBN1HN2KV https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-... [4]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-cambridge-analytica/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-cambridge... [5]: https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-sa... [6]: https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-breach/ https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-breach/ [7]: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-spotify-ad-slipped-malware-onto-pcs-and-macs https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-s...

downandout 9y ago

As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have contributed to a decline in engagement prior to the media-driven "scandal," but at least at this point the recent headlines have had no discernible impact. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of your argument. Most of the 26% of users that have installed ad blockers (including myself) have done it not so much to thwart tracking, but to put an end to the poor user experience that many intrusive ads create on web pages. Visit any local newspaper site with your ad blocker disabled to view what I'm talking about. Many sites aren't even usable without an ad blocker these days. I am in the ad blocking-for-user-experience camp...I could care less about tracking. In fact, for the ads that I do see, I like them being highly targeted. I went for years without clicking on a single ad on the web. Only in the last year or two have I found them relevant enough to click every now and then. Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks, I don't feel any violation of my privacy either. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-committee-hearing-no-facebook-user-dropoff.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-c...

Intermernet 9y ago
>I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your education level, your family size and many other details.
- downandout 9y ago
  And what exactly is wrong with that? So some marketers know that someone in the world likes to do X, lives in a certain place, likes to buy things, etc. It's not tied to your specific identity - it's just a collection of data. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    In the first place, your repeated assertion that you are anonymous in the data is wrong. A combination of zip code, date of birth, and gender will uniquely identify 87% of the people in the country [1], and I assure you advertisers have far more detailed information than that. In some cases, they have your DNA. [2] Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still proudly proclaims, on their home page, that they "[use] data to change audience behavior." Ads on Facebook are being used by different groups to inflame political tensions [3]. The tracking widgets used on nearly every site you visit now means that some company, somewhere, knows everything you're interested in. They are in the business of using that information against you, to their benefit, whether it's in crafting sensational stories with clickbait headlines to get more of your attention, or selling you products you don't need by preying on your insecurities, or just trading it for money to other companies who will use it in new and creative ways -- like CA, who specialize in tilting voting behavior. [4] Thirdly, you're counting on advertising firms having perfect security and never accidentally giving your information away to people who shouldn't have it. Advertising companies just don't have good history when it comes to data security [5] [6] [7]. People seem happy to ignore the ramifications of all of this, because it's not like they're feeling physical pain or discomfort or noticing any other immediate negative effect when more tracking data is collected or they see another ad. But this is a form of psychological warfare, and at least some of this stuff is designed to corrupt your thinking, to get more of your attention and change your opinions about things and convince you that it's all very harmless. We've strayed away from tracking data and into advertising, but they are two sides of the same coin. [1]: http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html [2]: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-use-your-dna-to-target-ads/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-us... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-divisive-facebook-ads-bought-by-suspicious-groups-study-idUSKBN1HN2KV https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-... [4]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-cambridge-analytica/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-cambridge... [5]: https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-sa... [6]: https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-breach/ https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-breach/ [7]: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-spotify-ad-slipped-malware-onto-pcs-and-macs https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-s...