10 ms·

Tech Companies Manipulate Our Personal Data

121 points by rafaelc 8y ago

no_nyt 8y ago
Go away, New York Times!
spullara 8y ago
Isn't this exactly the business model of news organizations like the NYT? People do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people. Nothing new under the sun. "According to Zuboff, surveillance capitalism distinguishes itself from its industrial forebear as “a new economic order that claims human experience as a free source of raw material.” "
- gerbilly 8y ago
  > People do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people. FTFY: People [in the public sphere] do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people.
- my_first_acct 8y ago
  Network TV might be a better analogy, since it is free to watch as long as you are willing to sit through the ads. The business model is the same as Facebook's: advertisers paying for the right to attempt to modify viewers' behavior. The difference is that Facebook has much more information about the viewers, and much more control over what is shown to individual viewers, than TV networks ever did. Everyone who has looked up "what Facebook knows about me" can tell stories about how wildly wrong some of Facebook's guesses are. However, unlike the TV networks or the NY Times, Facebook will get better with time. Will we get better at resisting its manipulations?
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Good points - you could boil down the difference to the pre-existing networks was there were many different networks competing. Today there are only two that do most online advertising, facebook and google. For multiple reasons, facebook is the one that seems to be used to manipulate people, perhaps because it's not searches plus ads, it's more used to put people together and reinforce their opinions in small groups. It's the ability to manipulate (reinforce, push horrible narratives) that causes the problem. Back in the usenet days of the 90s, it was exciting to meet people like me (programmer, geeky, interested in science, liberal, or whatever). There must have been people pushing racism, nationalism, everything is a conspiracy, but why didn't that cause the trouble we have today? Probably because it wasn't so ubiquitous.
sjroot 8y ago
This title is rather click-baity, and so is the term "surveillance capitalism." There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. However, people continue to embrace "big tech" because it is convenient. Whether you want to admit it or not, these companies do plenty of good for people around the world. I think the momentum of deleting our presence on these sites will continue to increase, but I also believe that it should be allowed to happen organically. Regulating this space without allowing people to realize its harmful effects and make the decision for themselves will only further polarize our society. Edit: Since I'm being down-voted, I should clarify that I definitely support some level of intervention. I would prefer that to take the form of educating people on the importance of preserving their privacy.
- CodeMage 8y ago
  > There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. I suggest watching Moxie Marlinspike's keynote for Defcon 18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk
  - NetOpWibby 8y ago
    What’s the TL;DW?
    - CodeMage 8y ago
      If I had to pick TL;DW relevant to this topic, it's that the choice of platform is aggregate, not individual. If the vast majority of people stop communicating or interacting in one way and start doing it in another, it's not really a feasible choice to opt out anymore. This is my own very clumsy summary. I strongly recommend watching the video, because Moxie is much better at explaining this than I am.
  - lapnitnelav 8y ago
    Such a great presentation that clearly highlights what's at stake in a way that's accessible to everyone and not just tech folks.
wnq 8y ago
"Shoshana Zuboff" complaining about capitalism... let me rub my hands
40acres 8y ago
"Data is the new oil" is such a concise phrase to provide context regarding the recent controversies of big tech. If anything, I'd say data is more valuable than oil. For one it's "renewable", but also the insight that can be gathered from data gives it a level of reach that even surpasses oil (which is very versatile in its own right). Data breeches are the new oil spills, the destabilizing by-product of burning fossil fuels has a lot of similarity to how the largest data brokers can disrupt entire industries, political systems, and neighborhoods. Data is a target for geo-political actors, whether it be slipping spyware into network infrastructure or tracking your own citizens. When we look back 100 years from now, I won't be surprised if the events that occurred during the mass commercialization of oil (anti-trust, regulation, military action, productivity gains, facilitation of developing economies) also occur due to data.
- pjmorris 8y ago
  Technically, this is off-topic, but Daniel Yergin's book 'The Prize' is an excellent, page-turning, read on the commercialization of oil. If your hunch is right, maybe you could get a preview of the next 100 years by reading it. I might go re-read it.
  - 40acres 8y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation, I've been looking for books like this to better understand today and what our future might look like. I'm currently wrapping up The Robber Barons by Matthew Josephson and it's a really solid read.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  > I'd say data is more valuable than oil. None of the social network companies sell user data. They sell ad placement, and use user data to target the ad audience. Selling ads is not selling data. When I think of selling data I think of companies that actually sell data. Equifax or MaxMind, for example. Oil and gas drilling alone are 2-3% of world GDP, which comes to about $2 trillion dollars. Facebook and Google make about $100 billion in combined ad revenue. I think it’s safe to say oil is probably 10x more valuable than social network advertising. > Data breeches are the new oil spills Comparing credit card fraud with ecological pollution and death?
kerng 8y ago
Surveillance capitalism is an interesting term to give the centralization of intelligence for the financial benefit of a few a name. Historically it was the government that was pushing for surveillance for security reasons, now companies push surveillance (although not obvious to them and their employees?) for financial gain.
throwaway98121 8y ago
My personal opinion based on what I know. Grouping these companies together as big tech and these brushing broad strokes isn’t helpful. It just seems like we’re picking the next bogeyman, sort of like how all the oil companies were grouped together, even though there were specific bad actors. It distorts the real issues and almost emboldens the other side who now work collectively to dismiss you as a tin foil conspiracy peddler. In my opinion, Facebook has some real issues with privacy and how they are able to legally provide a service that has taken the worst aspects of society and amplified them 1000x. Politics are more cancerous than ever. People have been murdered because of the misinformation and hate speech propaganda. Meanwhile, one of my best friends who works at FB as a senior engineer is convinced they’re changing the world for the better. Amazon, for instance, has fueled massive inequality in the Seattle area. As far as I know, they’re not selling customer data, although from what I’ve learned, they combined technology with great ideas on how to skirt regulation. My point being, a company like Amazon vs. Facebook - there are different issues. Grouping Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft together - its like the right wing conspiracy theories on how the Mueller investigation is a conspiracy funded by Soros, Obama, the Clintons, the Muslim brotherhood, and gays. This isn’t helpful and it distracts from the real issues.
- 40acres 8y ago
  I think it's reasonable to group these companies together if you're talking about wide trends and are careful to be specific when talking about certain instances. It's not wrong to say that "big tech" has contributed to rising inequality, data privacy issues, disruption of labor, monopoly effects, etc. The specific companies are not contributing to each effect but on aggregate its a valid method of analyzing the societal impacts of the industry.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    I don't know man? That's a little high level. In my neck of the woods, if I tell people, "Amazon treats their employees like crap." They get it. If I say, "Google can track your location with android phones so don't bring your phone to see your weed man." They get it. I can even say, "Facebook is full of Ruskies trying to influence the election." They'll get it. They'll know what I mean and everything that entails. But if I come at the people in my small town with, "Big Tech is what drives wealth inequity by disrupting traditional labor markets and causing data privacy issues. Which, of course, concert to cause knock on effects in the larger economy." Yeah, that's the kind of post-graduate parrot-speak that makes them look at my mother disapprovingly for raising such a pretentious ass-hat. I gotta agree with the guy using the throwaway account on this one.
bdastous 8y ago
Yet more anti-tech hysteria from the New York Times.
- drb91 8y ago
  C’mon, this ain’t Kaczynski, you’re reading the damn article through a browser and computer and they are actively selling the data you make on their site. If anything, the new york times is pathetically and dogmatically pro tech.
scarejunba 8y ago
The real problem is that people are selling this bullshit that the only alternatives are someone spying on you through your metaphorical bedroom window or you blindfold every company that interacts with you. I don't want a world where I pay for everything. When I was a child, I used a whole bunch of ad supported websites that only existed because they were ad supported. Everyone wants to coddle people and ensconce them in layers of paternalistic nonsense. FYI I would happily sell the private data I did then in exchange for the service I received a hundred times over. Those forums and websites were the ones that led to me being what I am today. Even a ten cent fee would have crippled my ability to grow into what I'm today because I had no means to pay it online. Enough with your bullshit. Let me be a goddamn person and give people things voluntarily so they can give me things voluntarily. Just stop inserting yourselves into every interaction I have with other people that's between the two of us. Instead now everyone wants to create this environment where I can't sell my private data because it's a bloody adventure to try to invalidate my right to then delete myself immediately. It's okay now because I make a half million a year and my kids will be fine. But the next me won't be so lucky.
- sidibe 8y ago
  Fully agreed. The part of GDPR that I don't like is that it doesn't let people and companies agree to the use of a service in exchange for advertising using their personal data. People should be allowed to decide they are OK with that. Sure, make the services be explicit about it or make it opt-in, but they should also be able to deny service to those who opt out.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    There are many sorts of things that we as a society agree to control in such a way that individuals are not given the option to be special case consenters to them. Toxic substances, willful enslavement, extreme firearms, explosives, biological weapons. Or even simpler, choosing to operate a personal vehicle without insurance (even if you assert you’re willing to bear the financial risks it entails). The list is probably a lot longer than this. What we’re just waking up to is that wealth centers are capable of degrees of engineering for behavioral tracking to support a scope of privacy intrusion that average citizens (or even coalitions of fairly sophisticated citizens) are absolutely nowhere close to being able to understand or cope with. There is simply no decision making framework that exists today in which we can possibly understand how a person consenting to this data collection would be at risk in the future, how their friends or children who possibly did not consent might be at risk by extension, and so on. Just as a libertarian extreme notion of simply letting free parties consent to a transaction falls apart when you’re talking about buying or selling a supervirus, so too does it fall apart when you’re talking about letting people “opt in” to having their entire sensory trail of generated behavioral data be commercialized.
crsmithdev 8y ago
And media outlets like the NYT manipulate our opinions. An endless parade of articles written by non-experts with no incentives to get anything right, but plenty to keep the story going and traffic coming in.
- overAndOver 8y ago
  NYT manipulate our opinions. They try to. Especially here on HN. HN is a specific target of NYT groupthink, and you can see that they began to campaign HN specifically about two years ago, targetting HN as an aggregator of choice, for users with pockets of the right depth to pay for digital subscriptions.
  - elipsey 8y ago
    >> you can see that they began to campaign HN specifically about two years ago No, I can't see that. If your going to accuse people of things, please explain what you mean and furnish some evidence. EDIT: It looks like your account is new. How do you know what was happening here two years ago? Did you change accounts or just lurk?
- bepotts 8y ago
  I can't remember who said it, but someone once compared the outrage over how tech companies use data to Yellowpages. There used to be this free book that had everyone's name, address, and phone number and the only way to opt out was to pay. This is much more egregious act than Google and Facebook; the only difference is the scale. At least Google and Facebook only take what you give them.
  - staplers 8y ago
    Horrendous analogy. Yellowpages never tracked your real-time location, served hyper-targeted political ads, or tested emotion-manipulation on its readers.
    - bepotts 8y ago
zorga 8y ago
No, they manipulate their data; that something is about you doesn't make it yours.
ilovecaching 8y ago
Actually, we're in a pretty good spot. Most the of the data is centralized, which makes the problem feasible to solve. I don't believe we've entered some Orwellian dystopia just yet; this is simply a growing pain. A bump in the road towards a society that is fully connected. These companies also have unlimited amounts of money to actually solve these problems, and the user base seems to be pushing them towards fixing the issues and stopping growth to retool. All and all, I have a very positive outlook on the whole situation.
- VRay 8y ago
  Good point! Now turn off all your privacy addons, Google up info on a disease or a new baby or engagement rings, and check out the ads you start getting
fromMars 8y ago
God, I get sick of these articles on hacker news. The same regurgitated horse bleep. This has become a meme around here to laud articles like this that use not so subtle words like "surveillance" and "manipulate" to suggest that something much more nefarious is going on here than actually is. There are already adequate protections in place to deal with these issues. If you don't want to be tracked don't use Facebook or Google or use them and opt out of tracking. It's that simple. We don't need these hyperbolic articles exaggerating the nature of this problem. People have been collecting data on us before the digital age. Credit Card Companies, Banks, and Credit Bureau's have long maintained profiles on us and sold them to partners.
- bepotts 8y ago
  I agree, but the problem is that people who hate "tracking" use the same terminology. You see them all over Hacker News. To say "privacy advocates" are disingenuous is a huge understatement.
- temp231239 8y ago
  I differ with you. Assuming, for sake of argument, data is not being scraped for nefarious purpose today then the time when it will be is not too far away. There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories. There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there services in total anonymous way or without being a research subject. Do you think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service ever? We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self into and encourage communities to build alternative solutions. Remember those few privacy settings provided by tech companies are result of such stories. Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to what they collect now.
  - fromMars 8y ago
    > There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories. Are you referring to data breaches? Not sure what protections you think will prevent them. > There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there services in total anonymous way. Again, these aren't essential services that you have to use. You can use Google via Duck Duck Go if you like. You can't use Facebook but you can use What's App if you want end to end encryption. > Do you think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service ever? I believe they already provide a browser plugin for pgp encryption. Full end to end encryption would probably require changes to existing email protocols. > We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self into. This is a valid point, however the hyperbolic tone of these articles is off putting to me. I think these companies are handling data in a responsible way. A more rational conversation around the real risks of these data collection practices, the value of the data,and the exchange of this data for services would be more enlightening, IMO. Too often these articles and the comments degenerate into X is bad and this bad without any nuance. Also, as I have stated, it is very easy to not use these services. > encourage communities to build alternative solutions I'm all for this. What I am not in favor is asking the government to force these private companies to make these. > Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to what they collect now. I worked at Credit Card companies a long time ago, and I wouldn't call the data they collected on people puny. In many cases these companies had access to every purchase a person made, every place they lived, their income, etc. To me that is very sensitive information. Again, I would like a rational conversation around how is the information that is being collective sensitive. That might actually be more useful to people.
3xblah 8y ago
The title of the NYT review is "How Tech Companies Manipulate Our Private Data" but the title of this thread omits the word "How", reducing the title to "Tech Companies Manipulate Our Personal Data".
oska 8y ago
I didn't get much from the submitted NYT piece, even though I'm interested in this book. I think the Guardian's piece [1] on the book is better. It includes responses from the author to 10 posed questions. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-...

121 points by rafaelc 8y ago

Go away, New York Times!

Isn't this exactly the business model of news organizations like the NYT? People do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people. Nothing new under the sun. "According to Zuboff, surveillance capitalism distinguishes itself from its industrial forebear as “a new economic order that claims human experience as a free source of raw material.” "

gerbilly 8y ago
> People do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people. FTFY: People [in the public sphere] do stuff, they write it down for free and sell it to people.
my_first_acct 8y ago
Network TV might be a better analogy, since it is free to watch as long as you are willing to sit through the ads. The business model is the same as Facebook's: advertisers paying for the right to attempt to modify viewers' behavior. The difference is that Facebook has much more information about the viewers, and much more control over what is shown to individual viewers, than TV networks ever did. Everyone who has looked up "what Facebook knows about me" can tell stories about how wildly wrong some of Facebook's guesses are. However, unlike the TV networks or the NY Times, Facebook will get better with time. Will we get better at resisting its manipulations?
- Latteland 8y ago
  Good points - you could boil down the difference to the pre-existing networks was there were many different networks competing. Today there are only two that do most online advertising, facebook and google. For multiple reasons, facebook is the one that seems to be used to manipulate people, perhaps because it's not searches plus ads, it's more used to put people together and reinforce their opinions in small groups. It's the ability to manipulate (reinforce, push horrible narratives) that causes the problem. Back in the usenet days of the 90s, it was exciting to meet people like me (programmer, geeky, interested in science, liberal, or whatever). There must have been people pushing racism, nationalism, everything is a conspiracy, but why didn't that cause the trouble we have today? Probably because it wasn't so ubiquitous.

sjroot 8y ago

This title is rather click-baity, and so is the term "surveillance capitalism." There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. However, people continue to embrace "big tech" because it is convenient. Whether you want to admit it or not, these companies do plenty of good for people around the world. I think the momentum of deleting our presence on these sites will continue to increase, but I also believe that it should be allowed to happen organically. Regulating this space without allowing people to realize its harmful effects and make the decision for themselves will only further polarize our society. Edit: Since I'm being down-voted, I should clarify that I definitely support some level of intervention. I would prefer that to take the form of educating people on the importance of preserving their privacy.

CodeMage 8y ago
> There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. I suggest watching Moxie Marlinspike's keynote for Defcon 18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk
- NetOpWibby 8y ago
  What’s the TL;DW?
  - CodeMage 8y ago
    If I had to pick TL;DW relevant to this topic, it's that the choice of platform is aggregate, not individual. If the vast majority of people stop communicating or interacting in one way and start doing it in another, it's not really a feasible choice to opt out anymore. This is my own very clumsy summary. I strongly recommend watching the video, because Moxie is much better at explaining this than I am.
- lapnitnelav 8y ago
  Such a great presentation that clearly highlights what's at stake in a way that's accessible to everyone and not just tech folks.

wnq 8y ago

"Shoshana Zuboff" complaining about capitalism... let me rub my hands

40acres 8y ago

"Data is the new oil" is such a concise phrase to provide context regarding the recent controversies of big tech. If anything, I'd say data is more valuable than oil. For one it's "renewable", but also the insight that can be gathered from data gives it a level of reach that even surpasses oil (which is very versatile in its own right). Data breeches are the new oil spills, the destabilizing by-product of burning fossil fuels has a lot of similarity to how the largest data brokers can disrupt entire industries, political systems, and neighborhoods. Data is a target for geo-political actors, whether it be slipping spyware into network infrastructure or tracking your own citizens. When we look back 100 years from now, I won't be surprised if the events that occurred during the mass commercialization of oil (anti-trust, regulation, military action, productivity gains, facilitation of developing economies) also occur due to data.

pjmorris 8y ago
Technically, this is off-topic, but Daniel Yergin's book 'The Prize' is an excellent, page-turning, read on the commercialization of oil. If your hunch is right, maybe you could get a preview of the next 100 years by reading it. I might go re-read it.
- 40acres 8y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation, I've been looking for books like this to better understand today and what our future might look like. I'm currently wrapping up The Robber Barons by Matthew Josephson and it's a really solid read.
simplecomplex 8y ago
> I'd say data is more valuable than oil. None of the social network companies sell user data. They sell ad placement, and use user data to target the ad audience. Selling ads is not selling data. When I think of selling data I think of companies that actually sell data. Equifax or MaxMind, for example. Oil and gas drilling alone are 2-3% of world GDP, which comes to about $2 trillion dollars. Facebook and Google make about $100 billion in combined ad revenue. I think it’s safe to say oil is probably 10x more valuable than social network advertising. > Data breeches are the new oil spills Comparing credit card fraud with ecological pollution and death?

kerng 8y ago

Surveillance capitalism is an interesting term to give the centralization of intelligence for the financial benefit of a few a name. Historically it was the government that was pushing for surveillance for security reasons, now companies push surveillance (although not obvious to them and their employees?) for financial gain.

throwaway98121 8y ago

My personal opinion based on what I know. Grouping these companies together as big tech and these brushing broad strokes isn’t helpful. It just seems like we’re picking the next bogeyman, sort of like how all the oil companies were grouped together, even though there were specific bad actors. It distorts the real issues and almost emboldens the other side who now work collectively to dismiss you as a tin foil conspiracy peddler. In my opinion, Facebook has some real issues with privacy and how they are able to legally provide a service that has taken the worst aspects of society and amplified them 1000x. Politics are more cancerous than ever. People have been murdered because of the misinformation and hate speech propaganda. Meanwhile, one of my best friends who works at FB as a senior engineer is convinced they’re changing the world for the better. Amazon, for instance, has fueled massive inequality in the Seattle area. As far as I know, they’re not selling customer data, although from what I’ve learned, they combined technology with great ideas on how to skirt regulation. My point being, a company like Amazon vs. Facebook - there are different issues. Grouping Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft together - its like the right wing conspiracy theories on how the Mueller investigation is a conspiracy funded by Soros, Obama, the Clintons, the Muslim brotherhood, and gays. This isn’t helpful and it distracts from the real issues.

40acres 8y ago
I think it's reasonable to group these companies together if you're talking about wide trends and are careful to be specific when talking about certain instances. It's not wrong to say that "big tech" has contributed to rising inequality, data privacy issues, disruption of labor, monopoly effects, etc. The specific companies are not contributing to each effect but on aggregate its a valid method of analyzing the societal impacts of the industry.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I don't know man? That's a little high level. In my neck of the woods, if I tell people, "Amazon treats their employees like crap." They get it. If I say, "Google can track your location with android phones so don't bring your phone to see your weed man." They get it. I can even say, "Facebook is full of Ruskies trying to influence the election." They'll get it. They'll know what I mean and everything that entails. But if I come at the people in my small town with, "Big Tech is what drives wealth inequity by disrupting traditional labor markets and causing data privacy issues. Which, of course, concert to cause knock on effects in the larger economy." Yeah, that's the kind of post-graduate parrot-speak that makes them look at my mother disapprovingly for raising such a pretentious ass-hat. I gotta agree with the guy using the throwaway account on this one.

bdastous 8y ago

Yet more anti-tech hysteria from the New York Times.

drb91 8y ago
C’mon, this ain’t Kaczynski, you’re reading the damn article through a browser and computer and they are actively selling the data you make on their site. If anything, the new york times is pathetically and dogmatically pro tech.

scarejunba 8y ago

The real problem is that people are selling this bullshit that the only alternatives are someone spying on you through your metaphorical bedroom window or you blindfold every company that interacts with you. I don't want a world where I pay for everything. When I was a child, I used a whole bunch of ad supported websites that only existed because they were ad supported. Everyone wants to coddle people and ensconce them in layers of paternalistic nonsense. FYI I would happily sell the private data I did then in exchange for the service I received a hundred times over. Those forums and websites were the ones that led to me being what I am today. Even a ten cent fee would have crippled my ability to grow into what I'm today because I had no means to pay it online. Enough with your bullshit. Let me be a goddamn person and give people things voluntarily so they can give me things voluntarily. Just stop inserting yourselves into every interaction I have with other people that's between the two of us. Instead now everyone wants to create this environment where I can't sell my private data because it's a bloody adventure to try to invalidate my right to then delete myself immediately. It's okay now because I make a half million a year and my kids will be fine. But the next me won't be so lucky.

sidibe 8y ago
Fully agreed. The part of GDPR that I don't like is that it doesn't let people and companies agree to the use of a service in exchange for advertising using their personal data. People should be allowed to decide they are OK with that. Sure, make the services be explicit about it or make it opt-in, but they should also be able to deny service to those who opt out.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  There are many sorts of things that we as a society agree to control in such a way that individuals are not given the option to be special case consenters to them. Toxic substances, willful enslavement, extreme firearms, explosives, biological weapons. Or even simpler, choosing to operate a personal vehicle without insurance (even if you assert you’re willing to bear the financial risks it entails). The list is probably a lot longer than this. What we’re just waking up to is that wealth centers are capable of degrees of engineering for behavioral tracking to support a scope of privacy intrusion that average citizens (or even coalitions of fairly sophisticated citizens) are absolutely nowhere close to being able to understand or cope with. There is simply no decision making framework that exists today in which we can possibly understand how a person consenting to this data collection would be at risk in the future, how their friends or children who possibly did not consent might be at risk by extension, and so on. Just as a libertarian extreme notion of simply letting free parties consent to a transaction falls apart when you’re talking about buying or selling a supervirus, so too does it fall apart when you’re talking about letting people “opt in” to having their entire sensory trail of generated behavioral data be commercialized.

crsmithdev 8y ago

And media outlets like the NYT manipulate our opinions. An endless parade of articles written by non-experts with no incentives to get anything right, but plenty to keep the story going and traffic coming in.

overAndOver 8y ago
NYT manipulate our opinions. They try to. Especially here on HN. HN is a specific target of NYT groupthink, and you can see that they began to campaign HN specifically about two years ago, targetting HN as an aggregator of choice, for users with pockets of the right depth to pay for digital subscriptions.
- elipsey 8y ago
  >> you can see that they began to campaign HN specifically about two years ago No, I can't see that. If your going to accuse people of things, please explain what you mean and furnish some evidence. EDIT: It looks like your account is new. How do you know what was happening here two years ago? Did you change accounts or just lurk?
bepotts 8y ago
I can't remember who said it, but someone once compared the outrage over how tech companies use data to Yellowpages. There used to be this free book that had everyone's name, address, and phone number and the only way to opt out was to pay. This is much more egregious act than Google and Facebook; the only difference is the scale. At least Google and Facebook only take what you give them.
- staplers 8y ago
  Horrendous analogy. Yellowpages never tracked your real-time location, served hyper-targeted political ads, or tested emotion-manipulation on its readers.
  - bepotts 8y ago

zorga 8y ago

No, they manipulate their data; that something is about you doesn't make it yours.

ilovecaching 8y ago

Actually, we're in a pretty good spot. Most the of the data is centralized, which makes the problem feasible to solve. I don't believe we've entered some Orwellian dystopia just yet; this is simply a growing pain. A bump in the road towards a society that is fully connected. These companies also have unlimited amounts of money to actually solve these problems, and the user base seems to be pushing them towards fixing the issues and stopping growth to retool. All and all, I have a very positive outlook on the whole situation.

VRay 8y ago
Good point! Now turn off all your privacy addons, Google up info on a disease or a new baby or engagement rings, and check out the ads you start getting

fromMars 8y ago

God, I get sick of these articles on hacker news. The same regurgitated horse bleep. This has become a meme around here to laud articles like this that use not so subtle words like "surveillance" and "manipulate" to suggest that something much more nefarious is going on here than actually is. There are already adequate protections in place to deal with these issues. If you don't want to be tracked don't use Facebook or Google or use them and opt out of tracking. It's that simple. We don't need these hyperbolic articles exaggerating the nature of this problem. People have been collecting data on us before the digital age. Credit Card Companies, Banks, and Credit Bureau's have long maintained profiles on us and sold them to partners.

bepotts 8y ago
I agree, but the problem is that people who hate "tracking" use the same terminology. You see them all over Hacker News. To say "privacy advocates" are disingenuous is a huge understatement.
temp231239 8y ago
I differ with you. Assuming, for sake of argument, data is not being scraped for nefarious purpose today then the time when it will be is not too far away. There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories. There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there services in total anonymous way or without being a research subject. Do you think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service ever? We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self into and encourage communities to build alternative solutions. Remember those few privacy settings provided by tech companies are result of such stories. Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to what they collect now.
- fromMars 8y ago
  > There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories. Are you referring to data breaches? Not sure what protections you think will prevent them. > There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there services in total anonymous way. Again, these aren't essential services that you have to use. You can use Google via Duck Duck Go if you like. You can't use Facebook but you can use What's App if you want end to end encryption. > Do you think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service ever? I believe they already provide a browser plugin for pgp encryption. Full end to end encryption would probably require changes to existing email protocols. > We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self into. This is a valid point, however the hyperbolic tone of these articles is off putting to me. I think these companies are handling data in a responsible way. A more rational conversation around the real risks of these data collection practices, the value of the data,and the exchange of this data for services would be more enlightening, IMO. Too often these articles and the comments degenerate into X is bad and this bad without any nuance. Also, as I have stated, it is very easy to not use these services. > encourage communities to build alternative solutions I'm all for this. What I am not in favor is asking the government to force these private companies to make these. > Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to what they collect now. I worked at Credit Card companies a long time ago, and I wouldn't call the data they collected on people puny. In many cases these companies had access to every purchase a person made, every place they lived, their income, etc. To me that is very sensitive information. Again, I would like a rational conversation around how is the information that is being collective sensitive. That might actually be more useful to people.

3xblah 8y ago

The title of the NYT review is "How Tech Companies Manipulate Our Private Data" but the title of this thread omits the word "How", reducing the title to "Tech Companies Manipulate Our Personal Data".

oska 8y ago

I didn't get much from the submitted NYT piece, even though I'm interested in this book. I think the Guardian's piece [1] on the book is better. It includes responses from the author to 10 posed questions. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-...