4 ms·

Still reads as irrational to me, but at least it's technically accurate. It's worth remembering that "data" as they say stales very quickly. Knowing that you

Still reads as irrational to me, but at least it's technically accurate. It's worth remembering that "data" as they say stales very quickly. Knowing that you ordered a package two months ago is far less interesting than knowing you're expecting one next week. Or that you'll be booking a plane trip soon, and wouldn't you just love to know Delta is cheapest on that date? "Having your data" isn't a binary concept. Their services degrade substantially once you turn off the firehose. You'll still get ads, but they won't be tailored to you. Maps won't be able to show your current position. Assistant won't be able to recognize your voice. And that's fine, if you prefer that approach. But the concept of "having your data" in a historical context is meaningless. The only thing that matters is if that firehose is still available to them. Turn it off if you like. It isn't a lost cause.

yborg 8y ago
> The only thing that matters is if that firehose is still available to them. Which it obviously is, so I'm not sure what point you were making viz. Google. The "turning off" of the items you mention is also entirely a user-visualization exercise. All of your data is still there inside the panopticon. Even not using Google service anywhere does not free you from it, if you send email to a Gmail user, lo, Google has it. So concerns about the behavior of a company with the market presence of Google are very relevant.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  >The "turning off" of the items you mention is also entirely a user-visualization exercise. Prove it. They offer controls for almost every service they provide. If you're going to claim they're visual-only, then prove that these controls do nothing. https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols https://adssettings.google.com/ https://adssettings.google.com/
smsm42 8y ago
> It's worth remembering that "data" as they say stales very quickly. Knowing that you ordered a package two months ago is far less interesting than knowing you're expecting one next week. Comparatively less, yes, but knowing about all your packages is still very interesting and hugely privacy sensitive. > You'll still get ads, but they won't be tailored to you. TBH, all tailoring I've seen is comically bad. Yeah, they can know I bought shoes so they would show me shoe ads for the next three months. As if that's how humans behave - once we're in "shoe heat", we do nothing but buy shoes for three months and the task of the good ad system is to capture when the "shoe heat" starts and capitalize on it. I think if one wrote a comedy show about robots trying to understand human society and getting it hilariously wrong every time, the behavior of ad networks could supply great material for years. > But the concept of "having your data" in a historical context is meaningless. No it's not. There's a lot of private things in one's past than can be dug up and (ab)used. Ask any politician who went through an electoral campaign.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  >Yeah, they can know I bought shoes so they would show me shoe ads for the next three months. You might be surprised. Some people buy far more shoes than they need. Be it for fashion or simply the love of shopping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if targeting shoe ads at recent shoppers actually made sense. >No it's not. There's a lot of private things in one's past than can be dug up and (ab)used. I'm speaking strictly in terms of their business model and services. That's where live data is essential. Fear of potential blackmail seems pretty far removed from that context.

yborg 8y ago

> The only thing that matters is if that firehose is still available to them. Which it obviously is, so I'm not sure what point you were making viz. Google. The "turning off" of the items you mention is also entirely a user-visualization exercise. All of your data is still there inside the panopticon. Even not using Google service anywhere does not free you from it, if you send email to a Gmail user, lo, Google has it. So concerns about the behavior of a company with the market presence of Google are very relevant.

SquareWheel 8y ago
>The "turning off" of the items you mention is also entirely a user-visualization exercise. Prove it. They offer controls for almost every service they provide. If you're going to claim they're visual-only, then prove that these controls do nothing. https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols https://adssettings.google.com/ https://adssettings.google.com/

smsm42 8y ago

> It's worth remembering that "data" as they say stales very quickly. Knowing that you ordered a package two months ago is far less interesting than knowing you're expecting one next week. Comparatively less, yes, but knowing about all your packages is still very interesting and hugely privacy sensitive. > You'll still get ads, but they won't be tailored to you. TBH, all tailoring I've seen is comically bad. Yeah, they can know I bought shoes so they would show me shoe ads for the next three months. As if that's how humans behave - once we're in "shoe heat", we do nothing but buy shoes for three months and the task of the good ad system is to capture when the "shoe heat" starts and capitalize on it. I think if one wrote a comedy show about robots trying to understand human society and getting it hilariously wrong every time, the behavior of ad networks could supply great material for years. > But the concept of "having your data" in a historical context is meaningless. No it's not. There's a lot of private things in one's past than can be dug up and (ab)used. Ask any politician who went through an electoral campaign.

SquareWheel 8y ago
>Yeah, they can know I bought shoes so they would show me shoe ads for the next three months. You might be surprised. Some people buy far more shoes than they need. Be it for fashion or simply the love of shopping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if targeting shoe ads at recent shoppers actually made sense. >No it's not. There's a lot of private things in one's past than can be dug up and (ab)used. I'm speaking strictly in terms of their business model and services. That's where live data is essential. Fear of potential blackmail seems pretty far removed from that context.