5 ms·

There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. This is not,

by throwaway2048 8y ago

There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. This is not, and never has been true.

BoorishBears 8y ago
The way I look at it is simple. The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay. If you don’t like the content, don’t view it. I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk... I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content. And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me. What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that. --- But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support. You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
- yholio 8y ago
  > What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? Some of us care about tracking and are unwilling to pay what we consider a massive price, far above the monetary value of those services. Yet, we are unable to opt for the paid, no-tracking alternative, and indeed, we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    > But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. > You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. > You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content? I mean look at how you're talking about these companies, if you view them as such villainous entities don't even bother with them right?
    - yholio 8y ago
      > we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
      - BoorishBears 8y ago
        Google can't magic its trackers into a site. Facebook login doesn't integrate itself into your HTML the moment you upload it to the WWW. Don't use sites that use them then.
- blackbrokkoli 8y ago
  The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content and the entity placing the ad. Supporting people via Patreon or PayPal? Donating to software? Participating in open source you use? Watching an ad embedded, vetted and filmed by the video creator (popular example: end of CinemaSins)? Buy silly merch which is actually thoughtfull? Sure thing! I always did that und will always do that! Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep meditation"? Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-trolled that? Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week to let me click on ads? Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO.
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    >The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content and the entity placing the ad. Please point out where I did that? I don't like having words put in my mouth. >Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep meditation"? Your "better sleep meditation" gets to choose it's platform. Ask them why they're on a platform with screaming shooter ads. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because they want money that screaming shooter ads pay. >Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-trolled that? Are you referring to the unwarranted automated copyright strike that was sent by Sony then reversed?(admittedly after longer than it should have taken, but still) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-music-you-dont-own-the-rights-to-bachs-music-on-facebook/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-music... Or are you talking about recordings that Sony actually has the rights for and fully has the right to make you pay for? > Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week to let me click on ads? Playing endless cat and mouse games with the dark patterns that let you fund the services you're using? I mean it sounds like you're using some seriously abusive service, maybe stop using it? >Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO. I don't see how YouTube is "demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads" Actually I can barely even parse that, you mean when the entire video is a scam ad it's less likely to be demonitized, because I find that pretty hard to believe, or you mean scam ads are demonitized? ads don't get demonitized, they just get removed, and if you keep doing that Google will just block you from making ads. But I digress, if you let a child on the internet without adult supervision, they will find adult things. That's just the nature of the beast, ads or not. It's unforunate that happened to you and your little sister, but if you let a child on the internet there will eventually be uncomfortable things found. What you should be doing for someone not old enough to know what something like that is is curating content and letting them consume it on a platform you're confident doesn't have anything inappropriate. And this is anecdotal but... I don't think I've ever seen an explicit ad on YouTube, let alone YouTube Kids. Next time you see an ad that you find explicit, you can click on the information bubble and find out why it was shown, the number one reason listed is usually recent searches.
- i88y6 8y ago
  My time is worth a lot more yours, apparently.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- thrower123 8y ago
  Surfing the internet without an adblocker is like having one-night stands without condoms. You never know what you might get infected with, and it's a stupid risk.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. AKA, the Apple Myth. Just because you overpay for apple products, people think they are immune from data collection. Apple probably collects more data on a per capita basis than google or facebook.
- mitchty 8y ago
  > Apple probably collects more data on a per capita basis than google or facebook. Sources? That which is asserted without evidence is also dismissed without evidence. I'm not aware of apple working with credit card companies to track if after an ad was show that someone bought their product. I do know Google has however, and Facebook, well, hard to argue they collect less data than Apple with a straight face. Please provide some substance to this argument if you could.
- eridius 8y ago
  Apple collects less data about you than practically any other company you interact with. They view personal data as a liability, not an asset, and only collect the data necessary to actually provide the revelant service (and they silo it internally so different services within the company don’t share data, and they anonymize it as much as possible, and they apply differential privacy, etc)
tensor 8y ago
There are publications that work this way, you don't see ads if you pay. I don't think there is any "magical thinking" in it. It's a common enough selling point for subscriptions that people expect it.

There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. This is not, and never has been true.

BoorishBears 8y ago

The way I look at it is simple. The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay. If you don’t like the content, don’t view it. I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk... I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content. And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me. What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that. --- But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support. You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?

yholio 8y ago
> What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? Some of us care about tracking and are unwilling to pay what we consider a massive price, far above the monetary value of those services. Yet, we are unable to opt for the paid, no-tracking alternative, and indeed, we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  > But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. > You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. > You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content? I mean look at how you're talking about these companies, if you view them as such villainous entities don't even bother with them right?
  - yholio 8y ago
    > we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
    - BoorishBears 8y ago
      Google can't magic its trackers into a site. Facebook login doesn't integrate itself into your HTML the moment you upload it to the WWW. Don't use sites that use them then.
blackbrokkoli 8y ago
The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content and the entity placing the ad. Supporting people via Patreon or PayPal? Donating to software? Participating in open source you use? Watching an ad embedded, vetted and filmed by the video creator (popular example: end of CinemaSins)? Buy silly merch which is actually thoughtfull? Sure thing! I always did that und will always do that! Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep meditation"? Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-trolled that? Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week to let me click on ads? Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  >The problem with your argument is that you unify the creator of the content and the entity placing the ad. Please point out where I did that? I don't like having words put in my mouth. >Getting a screaming Shooter Ad from EA in the middle of my "Better sleep meditation"? Your "better sleep meditation" gets to choose it's platform. Ask them why they're on a platform with screaming shooter ads. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's because they want money that screaming shooter ads pay. >Giving Sony money because I want to listen to Bethooven and they copyright-trolled that? Are you referring to the unwarranted automated copyright strike that was sent by Sony then reversed?(admittedly after longer than it should have taken, but still) https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-music-you-dont-own-the-rights-to-bachs-music-on-facebook/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/sorry-sony-music... Or are you talking about recordings that Sony actually has the rights for and fully has the right to make you pay for? > Playing endless cat and mouse with the dark patterns added every other week to let me click on ads? Playing endless cat and mouse games with the dark patterns that let you fund the services you're using? I mean it sounds like you're using some seriously abusive service, maybe stop using it? >Explaining my little sister what a dildo is because YouTube is busy demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads? FUCK NO. I don't see how YouTube is "demonitizing everyone but inappropriate scam ads" Actually I can barely even parse that, you mean when the entire video is a scam ad it's less likely to be demonitized, because I find that pretty hard to believe, or you mean scam ads are demonitized? ads don't get demonitized, they just get removed, and if you keep doing that Google will just block you from making ads. But I digress, if you let a child on the internet without adult supervision, they will find adult things. That's just the nature of the beast, ads or not. It's unforunate that happened to you and your little sister, but if you let a child on the internet there will eventually be uncomfortable things found. What you should be doing for someone not old enough to know what something like that is is curating content and letting them consume it on a platform you're confident doesn't have anything inappropriate. And this is anecdotal but... I don't think I've ever seen an explicit ad on YouTube, let alone YouTube Kids. Next time you see an ad that you find explicit, you can click on the information bubble and find out why it was shown, the number one reason listed is usually recent searches.
i88y6 8y ago
My time is worth a lot more yours, apparently.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
thrower123 8y ago
Surfing the internet without an adblocker is like having one-night stands without condoms. You never know what you might get infected with, and it's a stupid risk.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. AKA, the Apple Myth. Just because you overpay for apple products, people think they are immune from data collection. Apple probably collects more data on a per capita basis than google or facebook.

mitchty 8y ago
> Apple probably collects more data on a per capita basis than google or facebook. Sources? That which is asserted without evidence is also dismissed without evidence. I'm not aware of apple working with credit card companies to track if after an ad was show that someone bought their product. I do know Google has however, and Facebook, well, hard to argue they collect less data than Apple with a straight face. Please provide some substance to this argument if you could.
eridius 8y ago
Apple collects less data about you than practically any other company you interact with. They view personal data as a liability, not an asset, and only collect the data necessary to actually provide the revelant service (and they silo it internally so different services within the company don’t share data, and they anonymize it as much as possible, and they apply differential privacy, etc)

tensor 8y ago

There are publications that work this way, you don't see ads if you pay. I don't think there is any "magical thinking" in it. It's a common enough selling point for subscriptions that people expect it.