4 ms·

> No, it is not obvious that choices with risks attached should always be regulated away. The assumption is that all users are actively making a choice. Many a

by cyphar 9y ago

> No, it is not obvious that choices with risks attached should always be regulated away. The assumption is that all users are actively making a choice. Many are not aware of the choices they are making, and I think it's wrong to punish them for it -- when companies profit off this lack of literacy and people rush to their defense whenever people start talking about regulation. I don't want companies like Google and Amazon to be able to hoard massive amounts of personal information about a large portion of the world's population, and not have to respect the rights of the people whose information they have acquired. > You want a spectrum of financial products that depositors can choose from according to their risk tolerance. If effectively everyone of importance just uses Amazon (or Google) ads then you don't get a "spectrum" and there's no choice involved. You have an option to either use or not use a majority of the internet. Yes, you can use ad-blockers but that's not a long-term solution. > A site sending your browser Amazon ads does not oblige it to execute or display them. And this isn't some secret backend upload. If someone is willing to use a site with this revenue model, why is that your business? Most users are not aware of how these things work. I agree that if everyone knew how to block those ads and what the actual problems are with them, then things like GDPR might be less necessary (though the right to retract consent is something that should be enforced). But even then, ad-blockers are a defense against an industry that is over-stepping ethical boundaries every day. At which point do you say that companies which inflict systemic violations of ethics on billions of people should be held accountable? Or is it always the fault of the people because they didn't care enough about their personal information?

stef25 9y ago
Seems to come down to having to protect users from their own lack of understanding. What ethical boundaries do you think are being overstepped through advertising?
- Xylakant 9y ago
  It’s not advertising itself that is problematic. I’d be fine with an image loaded from the origin serevr. It’s the attached pervasive tracking and monitoring, coupled with the real security risks that come with the current incarnation of advertising technologies.
- mnsc 9y ago
  The irony is that if instead of passing legislation to try and "protect users/citizens from their own lack of understanding", a government would instead invest heavily in educating their users/citizens on privacy matters in order to minimize the unknowing populace, i.e. the "fodder" for shady data selling companies (like Facebook/Google). Then you would have companies arguing undue interference with their businesses (I don't know the correct term). And my guess is that's the way big companies prefer it since they can lobby easier when it's not laws but instead "education initiatives" and other fuzzy programs. And they could also counter-invest heavily in another set of "public education programs" where they could try to inform the users/citizens about how valuable they are when they don't understand/care about how their data is monetized. And with the advertising power/know-how these companies wield that match would be easily won against some random government propaganda. I could imagine a major ad campaing where this question is posted all over the city: "What ethical boundaries do you think are being overstepped through advertising? Think for yourselves, don't let the government tell you what to think! Sincerly, your friends the advertising business" That's a hard fucking question for me to answer concisely, so I wont do that. Sry.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Facebook don't sell data they sell access to customers based on data. Thats a very important distinction.
    - facetube 9y ago
      And that provides a profiling oracle that can be used to determine data about individuals. Once they interact, you know. It's not even difficult to pull off.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        Yes just like your Safeway loyalty card or your credit card uses the data you give. Or you voting and comments on this website is used to determine how to treat you here. Or the analytical data you have on your website. Or amazon. Are you going to stop using all these services that track you some way or another? Most digital companies wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use the data. So instead of just blanket calling it something it isn't and something that certainly isn't unique to FB or Google why not actually discuss the fundamentals rather than scapegoting someone just because they are some of the most successful.
- hansen 9y ago
  > Seems to come down to having to protect users from their own lack > of understanding. I had the impression that this is rather clearly regulated by the GDPR. A user has to consent to each use of her data. And you have to explain the use in an understandable way, no legalese. Just make a list where you explain in simple words how you want to use the data and add a checkbox to each item (default not checked). I don’t see how this could hurt any ethical business model.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    A user has to consent to each use of her data. This is a misunderstanding. Consent is only one acceptable legal basis for processing personal data under the GDPR. Almost everyone is going to use it as little as possible in future because of all the extra red tape involved. Ironically, that probably means a lot of organisations will now be straining to justify processing on some other basis and to minimise use of data subjects' explicit consent and exposure to the associated subject rights. Just make a list where you explain in simple words how you want to use the data and add a checkbox to each item (default not checked). It's not that simple, because for example organisations may have legal obligations or legitimate interests in processing data about someone even though it may not be in that person's interest. Consider these: [ ] I agree that my bank may keep records of the money I owe them. [ ] I agree that the car rental firm may keep a record of me borrowing their vehicle. [ ] I agree that the school where I'm applying for a job may do a background check before trusting me to look after kids. Obviously there are many issues like this where consent for the data processing can't be voluntary and independent of everything else that is going on.
  - iotscale 9y ago
    But the GDPR itself is written in legalese. There are many interpretations like yours, but then, without a lawyer, it's a dangerous game to play. The cost of the lawyer may be prohibitive to some small businesses, let alone side-projects. I'm actually pro-GDPR but this needs to be kept in mind.
  - stef25 9y ago
    If it's anything like the cookie consent, it will just be an annoyance and nobody will be anything wiser. The amount of "no clue what this is" among non technical people I know is 100%. But the EU pats itself on the back cause they're tackling privacy issues. It's a joke.
- facetube 9y ago
  Facebook has been party to gross human subjects research misconduct on multiple occasions. It's not just the advertising.

by cyphar 9y ago

stef25 9y ago

Seems to come down to having to protect users from their own lack of understanding. What ethical boundaries do you think are being overstepped through advertising?

Xylakant 9y ago
It’s not advertising itself that is problematic. I’d be fine with an image loaded from the origin serevr. It’s the attached pervasive tracking and monitoring, coupled with the real security risks that come with the current incarnation of advertising technologies.
mnsc 9y ago
The irony is that if instead of passing legislation to try and "protect users/citizens from their own lack of understanding", a government would instead invest heavily in educating their users/citizens on privacy matters in order to minimize the unknowing populace, i.e. the "fodder" for shady data selling companies (like Facebook/Google). Then you would have companies arguing undue interference with their businesses (I don't know the correct term). And my guess is that's the way big companies prefer it since they can lobby easier when it's not laws but instead "education initiatives" and other fuzzy programs. And they could also counter-invest heavily in another set of "public education programs" where they could try to inform the users/citizens about how valuable they are when they don't understand/care about how their data is monetized. And with the advertising power/know-how these companies wield that match would be easily won against some random government propaganda. I could imagine a major ad campaing where this question is posted all over the city: "What ethical boundaries do you think are being overstepped through advertising? Think for yourselves, don't let the government tell you what to think! Sincerly, your friends the advertising business" That's a hard fucking question for me to answer concisely, so I wont do that. Sry.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Facebook don't sell data they sell access to customers based on data. Thats a very important distinction.
  - facetube 9y ago
    And that provides a profiling oracle that can be used to determine data about individuals. Once they interact, you know. It's not even difficult to pull off.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Yes just like your Safeway loyalty card or your credit card uses the data you give. Or you voting and comments on this website is used to determine how to treat you here. Or the analytical data you have on your website. Or amazon. Are you going to stop using all these services that track you some way or another? Most digital companies wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use the data. So instead of just blanket calling it something it isn't and something that certainly isn't unique to FB or Google why not actually discuss the fundamentals rather than scapegoting someone just because they are some of the most successful.
hansen 9y ago
> Seems to come down to having to protect users from their own lack > of understanding. I had the impression that this is rather clearly regulated by the GDPR. A user has to consent to each use of her data. And you have to explain the use in an understandable way, no legalese. Just make a list where you explain in simple words how you want to use the data and add a checkbox to each item (default not checked). I don’t see how this could hurt any ethical business model.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  A user has to consent to each use of her data. This is a misunderstanding. Consent is only one acceptable legal basis for processing personal data under the GDPR. Almost everyone is going to use it as little as possible in future because of all the extra red tape involved. Ironically, that probably means a lot of organisations will now be straining to justify processing on some other basis and to minimise use of data subjects' explicit consent and exposure to the associated subject rights. Just make a list where you explain in simple words how you want to use the data and add a checkbox to each item (default not checked). It's not that simple, because for example organisations may have legal obligations or legitimate interests in processing data about someone even though it may not be in that person's interest. Consider these: [ ] I agree that my bank may keep records of the money I owe them. [ ] I agree that the car rental firm may keep a record of me borrowing their vehicle. [ ] I agree that the school where I'm applying for a job may do a background check before trusting me to look after kids. Obviously there are many issues like this where consent for the data processing can't be voluntary and independent of everything else that is going on.
- iotscale 9y ago
  But the GDPR itself is written in legalese. There are many interpretations like yours, but then, without a lawyer, it's a dangerous game to play. The cost of the lawyer may be prohibitive to some small businesses, let alone side-projects. I'm actually pro-GDPR but this needs to be kept in mind.
- stef25 9y ago
  If it's anything like the cookie consent, it will just be an annoyance and nobody will be anything wiser. The amount of "no clue what this is" among non technical people I know is 100%. But the EU pats itself on the back cause they're tackling privacy issues. It's a joke.
facetube 9y ago
Facebook has been party to gross human subjects research misconduct on multiple occasions. It's not just the advertising.