5 ms·

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 advertis

by 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.
      - facetube 8y ago
        > Most digital companies wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use the data This is a statement you're not possibly able to prove, and you've even left "the data" open, so you can quibble about the definition in future replies (despite the GDPR clearly giving one). Terminating replies here due to the gross intellectual dishonesty; have a great night.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        GDPR doesn't scapegoat anyone, it applies to anyone interacting with the EU or operating in the EU. The reason why Google/Facebook/Amazon are being mentioned is because they are the most obvious (and prolific) violators of user privacy. If we spent all our time mentioning all of the companies which violate user privacy on a systemic basis, we would never be able to get to the argument. > Most digital companies wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use the data. GDPR does not deny you the right to use user data, it regulates usage. This is such a ridiculous strawman that it doesn't even classify as a fallacy, it's just simply a lie. > Are you going to stop using all these services that track you some way or another? (I have stopped using many of the services you mentioned, but you're actually touching on the reason why regulation is necessary.) It is unreasonable to tell the general public they should stop using the internet if they want to maintain their privacy and dignity. And that's why there need to be regulations to provide protections for the general public when using a technology that is so central to the modern world.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Once upon a time, someone similarly pointed out that, if "they" wanted to improve vehicle safety, rather than mandating seat belts, air bags, and antilock brakes, they should just put an 8" long, razor sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel---to make the dangers obvious. The current state of data privacy doesn't even include the spike. As you point out, education is a fine idea, but it isn't going to work if there is a major industry based on it not working.
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 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.
    - facetube 8y ago
      > Most digital companies wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use the data This is a statement you're not possibly able to prove, and you've even left "the data" open, so you can quibble about the definition in future replies (despite the GDPR clearly giving one). Terminating replies here due to the gross intellectual dishonesty; have a great night.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      GDPR doesn't scapegoat anyone, it applies to anyone interacting with the EU or operating in the EU. The reason why Google/Facebook/Amazon are being mentioned is because they are the most obvious (and prolific) violators of user privacy. If we spent all our time mentioning all of the companies which violate user privacy on a systemic basis, we would never be able to get to the argument. > Most digital companies wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use the data. GDPR does not deny you the right to use user data, it regulates usage. This is such a ridiculous strawman that it doesn't even classify as a fallacy, it's just simply a lie. > Are you going to stop using all these services that track you some way or another? (I have stopped using many of the services you mentioned, but you're actually touching on the reason why regulation is necessary.) It is unreasonable to tell the general public they should stop using the internet if they want to maintain their privacy and dignity. And that's why there need to be regulations to provide protections for the general public when using a technology that is so central to the modern world.
mcguire 9y ago
Once upon a time, someone similarly pointed out that, if "they" wanted to improve vehicle safety, rather than mandating seat belts, air bags, and antilock brakes, they should just put an 8" long, razor sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel---to make the dangers obvious. The current state of data privacy doesn't even include the spike. As you point out, education is a fine idea, but it isn't going to work if there is a major industry based on it not working.

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.