3 ms·

While it is technically correct that ad networks don't sell personal data, it is also irrelevant. It's not the bits that matter, it's what one does informed by

by pacala 8y ago

While it is technically correct that ad networks don't sell personal data, it is also irrelevant. It's not the bits that matter, it's what one does informed by the bits. Ad networks sell _actionable insights_ informed by personal data. An ad network answers the question 'what is the best way to spend $$$ and win this election' _using_ personal data of millions of people, but not _revealing_ the personal data to the paying customer. The paying customer is highly unlikely to have the technical acumen to turn personal data into actionable insights anyways, service readily provided by the ad network. The fact that personal data was not revealed is irrelevant, the end effect was bought by anyways. The evil is in collecting personal data to begin with, not in the technical manner it is used against the people it belongs to.

fixermark 8y ago
We're going off into the weeds of philosophy, but... Do you mean it's evil to collect the personal data for the purpose of selling ad impressions of it's evil to collect personal data, full-stop? I want companies like Google collecting my personal data to, for example, provide me context-relevant search and map navigation results and voice-assistant actions. So it doesn't seem like evil-full-stop passes the smell test.
Nasrudith 8y ago
While there is some evil involved with targetted advertising there is a significant difference between that and direct data selling. The latter would be way worse. One tries to sell you weird stuff after you look up the infamous giant barrel of lube after hearing about all of the joke reviews. The other gives the lines of an honest man to hang you with to anyone willing to pay and spin you as a colossal pervert. It is why video rentals were protected information. That and the sublime trolling of reading Robert Bork's video rentals into official record after he stated there was no constitutional right to privacy.
- pacala 8y ago
  Fair enough. N:M surveillance is worse than N:1 surveillance from a personal perspective. Though unclear if that also holds at scale. They are still both evil and much worse than no surveillance.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I wonder about the disconcerting counterpart of radical transparency as in everyone surveilled and everyone has access. It would require a lot of soul searching about destroying all of the uncomfortable private hypocrisies but would force honesty and limit corruption. It would probably force either tolerance of previously dark secrets or conformity. Unfortunately cognitive dissonance is also a powerful force. Hypocrisy is only okay when we do it and all that.

by pacala 8y ago

fixermark 8y ago

We're going off into the weeds of philosophy, but... Do you mean it's evil to collect the personal data for the purpose of selling ad impressions of it's evil to collect personal data, full-stop? I want companies like Google collecting my personal data to, for example, provide me context-relevant search and map navigation results and voice-assistant actions. So it doesn't seem like evil-full-stop passes the smell test.

Nasrudith 8y ago

While there is some evil involved with targetted advertising there is a significant difference between that and direct data selling. The latter would be way worse. One tries to sell you weird stuff after you look up the infamous giant barrel of lube after hearing about all of the joke reviews. The other gives the lines of an honest man to hang you with to anyone willing to pay and spin you as a colossal pervert. It is why video rentals were protected information. That and the sublime trolling of reading Robert Bork's video rentals into official record after he stated there was no constitutional right to privacy.

pacala 8y ago
Fair enough. N:M surveillance is worse than N:1 surveillance from a personal perspective. Though unclear if that also holds at scale. They are still both evil and much worse than no surveillance.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I wonder about the disconcerting counterpart of radical transparency as in everyone surveilled and everyone has access. It would require a lot of soul searching about destroying all of the uncomfortable private hypocrisies but would force honesty and limit corruption. It would probably force either tolerance of previously dark secrets or conformity. Unfortunately cognitive dissonance is also a powerful force. Hypocrisy is only okay when we do it and all that.