5 ms·

I think something like Red Shell is obviously good for society and consumers are hurting themselves by overreacting. Better targeted ads == less money wasted o

I think something like Red Shell is obviously good for society and consumers are hurting themselves by overreacting. Better targeted ads == less money wasted on ads and more money spent on development == less people annoyed by ads they're not interested in == better games. Shame.

Bartweiss 8y ago
This seems like a misunderstanding of the complaint. I know people do oppose targeted advertising, but that's not why they're mad about Red Shell. The way Red Shell targets ads involves building and storing full device fingerprints when you play a game. It's a privacy risk totally separate from the targeted advertising question. And yes, individual devs could do that also, but at least I've chosen to deal with those devs, and my data can't be tracked across different games by different companies. If Red Shell switches to something like a device-side hash of the fingerprint, so that it can recognize returning users but not give out (or lose) the underlying data, I'd feel vastly better about it. Basic targeting analytics don't bother me, and "did this game ad work?" is vastly more justified than most tracking. I just don't want it tied to an externally-stored device fingerprint.
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
  I guess I don't understand in what way that's a privacy risk. They have the device fingerprint, isn't that just the device id, like a name? This is only meaningful if paired with another piece of information, like your personal identity or other tracking. In this case it's game sales which I think is definitely a positive thing. I mean if they were tracking other things or keylogging or something I would be mad but...
  - foepys 8y ago
    They are apparently also logging the Steam ID which is unique for each Steam account. In my eyes the Steam ID is PII as very few people with more than one game on it will change their Steam account.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      Although making a one way hash is the right way, having no opt-in is not in the EU. Also, you'd be surprised at what counts as PII in the EU. I know I've been after I read a lawyer's blog on the matter (sadly in my native language).
lovich 8y ago
Better for society? Do you think industrial companies dumping pollution is better for society because it makes cheaper products too? By harvesting this data, these companies are making a negative externality and not compensating any of the affected users for it. If they had been open about this, it'd be a different argument, but they kept it hidden
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
  But in this case there isn't a third party that's being harmed...
  - lovich 8y ago
    No there's not, it's the second party being harmed directly. These game companies secretly harmed users by extracting and storing personal information without making it apparent that it was part of the deal
mirimir 8y ago
Maybe we'd have better games if diet, exercise, etc stats for all game devs and staff were publicly available ;)
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Better targeted ads == less money wasted on ads" You're gonna have to expand more on that point. "less money wasted on ads and more money spent on development" There's no guarantee at all that the money not spent on ads (if that does happen) will be spent on development instead of just being pocketed. "less people annoyed by ads they're not interested in == better games." This doesn't follow at all.
astrodust 8y ago
There's better targeting like "This is a guy, so tampon ads are not likely to convert" and there's better targeting like "This guy watches a lot of porn, uses Facebook religiously, uses GitHub, lives in a high-rent area of San Francisco, owns two dogs, is probably gay, and is looking to buy a vacation property in Nevis." The first is broad strokes. The second is extremely intrusive.
Fnoord 8y ago
> Better targeted ads == less money wasted on ads and more money spent on development == less people annoyed by ads they're not interested in == better games. Shame. The best targeted ads, for me, are no ads. I don't like wasting my time on ads, I don't like being manipulated by ads, I like to decide for myself based on my needs instead. I'm done with the "hey, do you need this?" crap shoved down my throat. Its like walking around in Eindhoven getting cocaine offered on every street corner. No, I'm not interested! Now you could argue, "it isn't targeted enough on this person". I'm a cheapskate and I don't wanna play RNG lotteries. Also, your logic is very much from an advertising company PoV. For the rest of the world it does not follow. What will likely happen is the exact amount of money (based on budget) will be spend on ads. Targeted ads just lead to more sales, at the expense of privacy. If I have the choice between targeted ads vs general ads I rather have general ads, because I don't want to see ads in the first place since I don't want to get manipulated (and I feel I often succeed on that one).

Bartweiss 8y ago

This seems like a misunderstanding of the complaint. I know people do oppose targeted advertising, but that's not why they're mad about Red Shell. The way Red Shell targets ads involves building and storing full device fingerprints when you play a game. It's a privacy risk totally separate from the targeted advertising question. And yes, individual devs could do that also, but at least I've chosen to deal with those devs, and my data can't be tracked across different games by different companies. If Red Shell switches to something like a device-side hash of the fingerprint, so that it can recognize returning users but not give out (or lose) the underlying data, I'd feel vastly better about it. Basic targeting analytics don't bother me, and "did this game ad work?" is vastly more justified than most tracking. I just don't want it tied to an externally-stored device fingerprint.

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
I guess I don't understand in what way that's a privacy risk. They have the device fingerprint, isn't that just the device id, like a name? This is only meaningful if paired with another piece of information, like your personal identity or other tracking. In this case it's game sales which I think is definitely a positive thing. I mean if they were tracking other things or keylogging or something I would be mad but...
- foepys 8y ago
  They are apparently also logging the Steam ID which is unique for each Steam account. In my eyes the Steam ID is PII as very few people with more than one game on it will change their Steam account.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Although making a one way hash is the right way, having no opt-in is not in the EU. Also, you'd be surprised at what counts as PII in the EU. I know I've been after I read a lawyer's blog on the matter (sadly in my native language).

lovich 8y ago

Better for society? Do you think industrial companies dumping pollution is better for society because it makes cheaper products too? By harvesting this data, these companies are making a negative externality and not compensating any of the affected users for it. If they had been open about this, it'd be a different argument, but they kept it hidden

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
But in this case there isn't a third party that's being harmed...
- lovich 8y ago
  No there's not, it's the second party being harmed directly. These game companies secretly harmed users by extracting and storing personal information without making it apparent that it was part of the deal

mirimir 8y ago

Maybe we'd have better games if diet, exercise, etc stats for all game devs and staff were publicly available ;)

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Better targeted ads == less money wasted on ads" You're gonna have to expand more on that point. "less money wasted on ads and more money spent on development" There's no guarantee at all that the money not spent on ads (if that does happen) will be spent on development instead of just being pocketed. "less people annoyed by ads they're not interested in == better games." This doesn't follow at all.

astrodust 8y ago

There's better targeting like "This is a guy, so tampon ads are not likely to convert" and there's better targeting like "This guy watches a lot of porn, uses Facebook religiously, uses GitHub, lives in a high-rent area of San Francisco, owns two dogs, is probably gay, and is looking to buy a vacation property in Nevis." The first is broad strokes. The second is extremely intrusive.

Fnoord 8y ago

> Better targeted ads == less money wasted on ads and more money spent on development == less people annoyed by ads they're not interested in == better games. Shame. The best targeted ads, for me, are no ads. I don't like wasting my time on ads, I don't like being manipulated by ads, I like to decide for myself based on my needs instead. I'm done with the "hey, do you need this?" crap shoved down my throat. Its like walking around in Eindhoven getting cocaine offered on every street corner. No, I'm not interested! Now you could argue, "it isn't targeted enough on this person". I'm a cheapskate and I don't wanna play RNG lotteries. Also, your logic is very much from an advertising company PoV. For the rest of the world it does not follow. What will likely happen is the exact amount of money (based on budget) will be spend on ads. Targeted ads just lead to more sales, at the expense of privacy. If I have the choice between targeted ads vs general ads I rather have general ads, because I don't want to see ads in the first place since I don't want to get manipulated (and I feel I often succeed on that one).