7 ms·

Lots of my family just takes the side of "I have nothing to hide". My little brother is 20 years younger then I and was raised by youtube. I find his attitude

Lots of my family just takes the side of "I have nothing to hide". My little brother is 20 years younger then I and was raised by youtube. I find his attitude towards things really weird. Like I asked him why he didn't use an adblocker to get rid of all the ads and he replied "I want to support to the streamers by watching their ads". As someone who grew up in a more punk/fuck authority, don't sell out 90s this threw me for a total loop. If he was on an android phone he would be mashing that ALLOW ACCESS button to play every game. I quit facebook after cambridge analytica. Probably 2 weeks of typing "Fa...." into my browser and going "oh wait". There a few birthday parties/bbqs I probably missed because of not being reminded I exist on peoples invite lists, but they weren't the closest friends to begin with.

Sumaso 8y ago
What am I really losing though by allowing access? The company is passing on info to advertising networks so they can try and get me hooked on more mobile games. No one cares who you are, they are just trying to sell ad space.
- TelmoMenezes 8y ago
  > What am I really losing though by allowing access? Sovereignty over your cognitive processes.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    Honest question: have you considered that some people are less susceptible to advertising? I used to think comments like yours were just absurd hyperbole, until I noticed them popping up enough that I considered the possibility that some people really do consider themselves utterly helpless in the face of advertising, and perhaps accurately so. This isn't really an attack on your comment specifically; I just wonder to what extent this differential response drives much of the disagreement I've seen on the topic. (you could perhaps say the same thing about the legalization of certain drugs).
    - nacho2sweet 8y ago
      There is a difference in advertising when it is like some "BUY THIS TSHIRT" sidebar thing and the more pernicious "promoted" story that shows up in your feed you are consuming all times a day. Also listed in this article is an app called Muslim-Pro which apparently helps with prayer times etc. As someone who is not American, I wouldn't trust this as much as everyone is freaking about Huawei being part of 5G.
    - sixothree 8y ago
      Who are these people you speak of? I don't think they exist.
    - bun_at_work 8y ago
      Not OP, but the truth is that everyone is highly susceptible to advertising and other methods of mental priming. It is probably true that people are susceptible at different levels, though. However, the brain and our environment interact in highly complex ways that affect our behavior a great deal, and this is what advertising is designed to target. That's why a predominant advertising strategy is to equate the product being advertised with social status, something humans have evolved to be very sensitive to (and other social organisms too). If you're interested in this stuff, I'd recommend the following books: Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky and Media Literacy by W. James Potter
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Do you recall the discussion last week about Facebook moderators turning from rational people into conspiracy theorists because they are exposed to that crap all day every day? I would suspect that it is the folks who think they are less susceptible who are most at risk. In a way it makes me think of the misunderstanding around Dunning-Kruger (i.e. it's not an observation about dumb people, it is a warning to people who think they are smart).
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      People who have the hubris to think themselves immune to advertising and other underhanded methods of persuasion are in fact the most vulnerable.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago
  So far...
- nacho2sweet 8y ago
  Where you been? these apps track your GPS coordinates 24/7, have your mic open all the time and get access all your contacts. They then sell this data from data aggregator to data aggregator and finally this data was being sold to bounty hunters or anyone who knew someone with access for a few hundred bucks. You can have an ex, stalker, business competitor etc buy your trove. Did you read about the Cambridge Analytica scandal at all either? I mean if you are fine about someone knowing about everything you ever clicked like on online and directing adds to rile you up politically then fine. Let the algorithms feed you man.
- cloudsinthesky 8y ago
  > No one cares who you are, they are just trying to sell ad space. That's not true at all. GP comment referenced the fact that foreign companies get the data and then manipulate public opinion by spreading lies in a targeted manner, with the direct goal of cheating elections to get far-right, fascist governments in power globally. > What am I really losing though by allowing access? We have a lot to lose here. We already lost our democracy. At least temporarily. > No one cares who you are Yeah, they do. They care because that gives them power. We know humans like power and we know it is corrupting. Your posts are spreading dangerous lies. The ad space is not some innocent thing. It is insidious and threatens democracy, with tyrants and dictators already taking over countries with the help of 'innocent ad space' that 'nobody really cares about'.
  - amatecha 8y ago
    Correct - this stuff "doesn't matter" only if what people think doesn't matter.
  - JKCalhoun 8y ago
    You've hit on the most nefarious part of all of it. People say they have nothing to hide, I don't doubt it. What they should be concerned about though is the constant, targeted stream of disinformation. It's one thing when it's a detergent that is claiming to make your clothes whiter, it's another altogether when it's messages suggesting you might also want a whiter neighborhood.
    - jachee 8y ago
      Perhaps even that they believe that they have nothing to hide is, itself, a result of a disinformation campaign.
    - specialist 8y ago
      The asymmetry (power imbalance) bothers me. People are profiting from my data. All that activity is unknowable to me. How is that fair? If I don't get any privacy, then no one else gets any privacy either. Alternately, establish that everything knowable about me is mine and gimme my cut.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  Some people don't like having data collected on them, period. In the end, most of that data results in emotional manipulation in the pursuit of behaviors that businesspeople want
- trophycase 8y ago
  Maybe those people who's job it is to addict you to a mindless mobile game will have to go and get a real job that actually contributes meaningfully to the economy instead of just redistributing consumer demand.
  - 1zee 8y ago
    Edgy, but most jobs in a capitalistic, efficiency-obsessed marketplace involve redistributing consumer demand.
kbenson 8y ago
> I want to support to the streamers by watching their ads > If he was on an android phone he would be mashing that ALLOW ACCESS button to play every game. These are different things, and while he might have the same view you express in the second quote, that's not necessarily a foregone conclusion from the first quote. It's perfectly acceptable to be willing to (and feel obligated to) watch adds to support a program that you enjoy. Not wanting to support anything you consume isn't "fuck authority", it's "fuck everyone else", because it isn't aimed at authority, it's aimed at anyone and everyone that tries to use advertising to support themselves. I don't think most people would say yes if presented with a choice of "let us read your private instant messages for access", or at least wouldn't after being educated a bit more if they were willing. Giving away privacy is special because you can never get it back (for the specific stuff you gave away), and that's different than people saying they are willing to passively accept some additional content to get what they want. That they might also be giving away privacy is a problem, but that doesn't mean we can infer their position on privacy based on actions they weren't aware they were taking.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  > It's perfectly acceptable to be willing to (and feel obligated to) watch adds to support a program that you enjoy. Not wanting to support anything you consume isn't "fuck authority" I was surprised by the parent post over this too. By most standards I'm out towards the fringe of the privacy and anti-ad viewpoint; I'm willing to argue that most billboards are intrusive and bad for society. But even I actively whitelist ads when I'm regularly visiting some creator who relies on ads for revenue and has reasonable practices with them. (Not wanting malware is of course a different concern.) It's the place where I'm most willing to see ads; I'm voluntarily directing my attention to content that wouldn't be available any other way, and the ad payouts are going to the people making the content. It's not just that anti-authority isn't the same as anti-monetization, the punk DIY aesthetic isn't necessarily either. Sure, fuck big record labels, the modern version is probably refusing to let content hosts and scrapers profit off what you make. Buzzfeed does not need to show ads alongside random pictures they swiped off reddit. But warehouse shows still sold tickets, Against All Authority printed their own merch to sell, most people didn't try to fight the power by pretending that artists didn't need money to live.
asurty 8y ago
I also found typing "Fa.." became muscle memory. I found blocking it with /etc/hosts worked for me - https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f78d6909c1637501000d846f https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f... [edit] I was thinking about redirecting to a google image search of cute animals wearing human clothes but after a few weeks of seeing 'this site can't be reached' my habit was successfully broken
alphang 8y ago
danah boyd has an interesting essay on this - Selling Out’ Is Meaningless https://medium.com/message/selling-out-is-meaningless-3450a5bc98d2 https://medium.com/message/selling-out-is-meaningless-3450a5...
dkrich 8y ago
I'm not surprised so many people only see this issue from one side, which is some version of "Keeping all of your data locked up is the most important thing in the world and ads are always bad. If you disagree with that you are either not technical or stupid." It seems that nobody ever considers the other side, which would be that people are now targeted with ads that they want to see instead of poorly targeted ads that just waste their time. Another plus is that small advertisers can now afford to advertise alongside companies with much larger budgets by micro-targeting. I've engaged with lots of ads on Facebook and its not because I'm stupid, it's because they are showing me things I'm interested in. There's nothing wrong with being concerned with how data is being used but this constant dialogue from the "never ads" crowd is pretty tired.
- mr_custard 8y ago
  That's potentially fine and easy enough to solve. Simply make "I want to see targeted ads" an opt-in choice, then. I suspect the take-up would be a fairly small percentage of the population, but if it would satisfy your needs (and others like you), as well as mine - then I'm all for it!
  - lotu 8y ago
    > Simply make "I want to see targeted ads" an opt-in choice, then. I suspect the take-up would be a fairly small percentage of the population, but if it would satisfy your needs (and others like you), then I'm all for it. This is disingenuous, I suspect that you know why. The reason few people would opt-in is not because few people support or agree with the premise. The reasons is the very act of "opting-in" to a thing is a huge barrier. If receiving CPR was "opt-in", I would expect 1/3 of the population would just never get around to it or somehow be confused with the process. I bet you even could drive the opt-in rate down to 10% just by requiring a separate paper form that had to be requested and mailed to specific address. Targeted ads are a method by which lots of people are able to make a bit more money. These aren't exciting changes but it is the difference between lots of people having hobby and making it their job. As most people don't care enough about the privacy of their internet history to take trivial steps like using private browsing windows. Why should the obligation to be on the large number of people who don't care when the small number of people who do care can take trivial steps, like private browsing?
wnmurphy 8y ago
If they're committed to the position that privacy is not valuable in it's own right, for it's own sake, then you might suggest to them that they put a webcam in front of their toilet. "Nothing to hide" usually means they don't realize just how much can be known about a person from the trail they leave online.
laughingman2 8y ago
I applaud your attitude. The other child commentors have the naive view like your brother that "enabling ads" give some of a positive impact (supporting artists) than the negatives of current ad industry. The only way to individuals can fight tracking ads now is to starve the industry out. I am tempted to say take the fight forward and install Ad Clickers https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/ in every browser you get your hands on.

Sumaso 8y ago

What am I really losing though by allowing access? The company is passing on info to advertising networks so they can try and get me hooked on more mobile games. No one cares who you are, they are just trying to sell ad space.

TelmoMenezes 8y ago
> What am I really losing though by allowing access? Sovereignty over your cognitive processes.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  Honest question: have you considered that some people are less susceptible to advertising? I used to think comments like yours were just absurd hyperbole, until I noticed them popping up enough that I considered the possibility that some people really do consider themselves utterly helpless in the face of advertising, and perhaps accurately so. This isn't really an attack on your comment specifically; I just wonder to what extent this differential response drives much of the disagreement I've seen on the topic. (you could perhaps say the same thing about the legalization of certain drugs).
  - nacho2sweet 8y ago
    There is a difference in advertising when it is like some "BUY THIS TSHIRT" sidebar thing and the more pernicious "promoted" story that shows up in your feed you are consuming all times a day. Also listed in this article is an app called Muslim-Pro which apparently helps with prayer times etc. As someone who is not American, I wouldn't trust this as much as everyone is freaking about Huawei being part of 5G.
  - sixothree 8y ago
    Who are these people you speak of? I don't think they exist.
  - bun_at_work 8y ago
    Not OP, but the truth is that everyone is highly susceptible to advertising and other methods of mental priming. It is probably true that people are susceptible at different levels, though. However, the brain and our environment interact in highly complex ways that affect our behavior a great deal, and this is what advertising is designed to target. That's why a predominant advertising strategy is to equate the product being advertised with social status, something humans have evolved to be very sensitive to (and other social organisms too). If you're interested in this stuff, I'd recommend the following books: Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky and Media Literacy by W. James Potter
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Do you recall the discussion last week about Facebook moderators turning from rational people into conspiracy theorists because they are exposed to that crap all day every day? I would suspect that it is the folks who think they are less susceptible who are most at risk. In a way it makes me think of the misunderstanding around Dunning-Kruger (i.e. it's not an observation about dumb people, it is a warning to people who think they are smart).
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    People who have the hubris to think themselves immune to advertising and other underhanded methods of persuasion are in fact the most vulnerable.
barbecue_sauce 8y ago
So far...
nacho2sweet 8y ago
Where you been? these apps track your GPS coordinates 24/7, have your mic open all the time and get access all your contacts. They then sell this data from data aggregator to data aggregator and finally this data was being sold to bounty hunters or anyone who knew someone with access for a few hundred bucks. You can have an ex, stalker, business competitor etc buy your trove. Did you read about the Cambridge Analytica scandal at all either? I mean if you are fine about someone knowing about everything you ever clicked like on online and directing adds to rile you up politically then fine. Let the algorithms feed you man.
cloudsinthesky 8y ago
> No one cares who you are, they are just trying to sell ad space. That's not true at all. GP comment referenced the fact that foreign companies get the data and then manipulate public opinion by spreading lies in a targeted manner, with the direct goal of cheating elections to get far-right, fascist governments in power globally. > What am I really losing though by allowing access? We have a lot to lose here. We already lost our democracy. At least temporarily. > No one cares who you are Yeah, they do. They care because that gives them power. We know humans like power and we know it is corrupting. Your posts are spreading dangerous lies. The ad space is not some innocent thing. It is insidious and threatens democracy, with tyrants and dictators already taking over countries with the help of 'innocent ad space' that 'nobody really cares about'.
- amatecha 8y ago
  Correct - this stuff "doesn't matter" only if what people think doesn't matter.
- JKCalhoun 8y ago
  You've hit on the most nefarious part of all of it. People say they have nothing to hide, I don't doubt it. What they should be concerned about though is the constant, targeted stream of disinformation. It's one thing when it's a detergent that is claiming to make your clothes whiter, it's another altogether when it's messages suggesting you might also want a whiter neighborhood.
  - jachee 8y ago
    Perhaps even that they believe that they have nothing to hide is, itself, a result of a disinformation campaign.
  - specialist 8y ago
    The asymmetry (power imbalance) bothers me. People are profiting from my data. All that activity is unknowable to me. How is that fair? If I don't get any privacy, then no one else gets any privacy either. Alternately, establish that everything knowable about me is mine and gimme my cut.
tomc1985 8y ago
Some people don't like having data collected on them, period. In the end, most of that data results in emotional manipulation in the pursuit of behaviors that businesspeople want
trophycase 8y ago
Maybe those people who's job it is to addict you to a mindless mobile game will have to go and get a real job that actually contributes meaningfully to the economy instead of just redistributing consumer demand.
- 1zee 8y ago
  Edgy, but most jobs in a capitalistic, efficiency-obsessed marketplace involve redistributing consumer demand.

kbenson 8y ago

> I want to support to the streamers by watching their ads > If he was on an android phone he would be mashing that ALLOW ACCESS button to play every game. These are different things, and while he might have the same view you express in the second quote, that's not necessarily a foregone conclusion from the first quote. It's perfectly acceptable to be willing to (and feel obligated to) watch adds to support a program that you enjoy. Not wanting to support anything you consume isn't "fuck authority", it's "fuck everyone else", because it isn't aimed at authority, it's aimed at anyone and everyone that tries to use advertising to support themselves. I don't think most people would say yes if presented with a choice of "let us read your private instant messages for access", or at least wouldn't after being educated a bit more if they were willing. Giving away privacy is special because you can never get it back (for the specific stuff you gave away), and that's different than people saying they are willing to passively accept some additional content to get what they want. That they might also be giving away privacy is a problem, but that doesn't mean we can infer their position on privacy based on actions they weren't aware they were taking.

Bartweiss 8y ago
> It's perfectly acceptable to be willing to (and feel obligated to) watch adds to support a program that you enjoy. Not wanting to support anything you consume isn't "fuck authority" I was surprised by the parent post over this too. By most standards I'm out towards the fringe of the privacy and anti-ad viewpoint; I'm willing to argue that most billboards are intrusive and bad for society. But even I actively whitelist ads when I'm regularly visiting some creator who relies on ads for revenue and has reasonable practices with them. (Not wanting malware is of course a different concern.) It's the place where I'm most willing to see ads; I'm voluntarily directing my attention to content that wouldn't be available any other way, and the ad payouts are going to the people making the content. It's not just that anti-authority isn't the same as anti-monetization, the punk DIY aesthetic isn't necessarily either. Sure, fuck big record labels, the modern version is probably refusing to let content hosts and scrapers profit off what you make. Buzzfeed does not need to show ads alongside random pictures they swiped off reddit. But warehouse shows still sold tickets, Against All Authority printed their own merch to sell, most people didn't try to fight the power by pretending that artists didn't need money to live.

asurty 8y ago

I also found typing "Fa.." became muscle memory. I found blocking it with /etc/hosts worked for me - https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f78d6909c1637501000d846f https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f... [edit] I was thinking about redirecting to a google image search of cute animals wearing human clothes but after a few weeks of seeing 'this site can't be reached' my habit was successfully broken

alphang 8y ago

danah boyd has an interesting essay on this - Selling Out’ Is Meaningless https://medium.com/message/selling-out-is-meaningless-3450a5bc98d2 https://medium.com/message/selling-out-is-meaningless-3450a5...

dkrich 8y ago

I'm not surprised so many people only see this issue from one side, which is some version of "Keeping all of your data locked up is the most important thing in the world and ads are always bad. If you disagree with that you are either not technical or stupid." It seems that nobody ever considers the other side, which would be that people are now targeted with ads that they want to see instead of poorly targeted ads that just waste their time. Another plus is that small advertisers can now afford to advertise alongside companies with much larger budgets by micro-targeting. I've engaged with lots of ads on Facebook and its not because I'm stupid, it's because they are showing me things I'm interested in. There's nothing wrong with being concerned with how data is being used but this constant dialogue from the "never ads" crowd is pretty tired.

mr_custard 8y ago
That's potentially fine and easy enough to solve. Simply make "I want to see targeted ads" an opt-in choice, then. I suspect the take-up would be a fairly small percentage of the population, but if it would satisfy your needs (and others like you), as well as mine - then I'm all for it!
- lotu 8y ago
  > Simply make "I want to see targeted ads" an opt-in choice, then. I suspect the take-up would be a fairly small percentage of the population, but if it would satisfy your needs (and others like you), then I'm all for it. This is disingenuous, I suspect that you know why. The reason few people would opt-in is not because few people support or agree with the premise. The reasons is the very act of "opting-in" to a thing is a huge barrier. If receiving CPR was "opt-in", I would expect 1/3 of the population would just never get around to it or somehow be confused with the process. I bet you even could drive the opt-in rate down to 10% just by requiring a separate paper form that had to be requested and mailed to specific address. Targeted ads are a method by which lots of people are able to make a bit more money. These aren't exciting changes but it is the difference between lots of people having hobby and making it their job. As most people don't care enough about the privacy of their internet history to take trivial steps like using private browsing windows. Why should the obligation to be on the large number of people who don't care when the small number of people who do care can take trivial steps, like private browsing?

wnmurphy 8y ago

If they're committed to the position that privacy is not valuable in it's own right, for it's own sake, then you might suggest to them that they put a webcam in front of their toilet. "Nothing to hide" usually means they don't realize just how much can be known about a person from the trail they leave online.

laughingman2 8y ago

I applaud your attitude. The other child commentors have the naive view like your brother that "enabling ads" give some of a positive impact (supporting artists) than the negatives of current ad industry. The only way to individuals can fight tracking ads now is to starve the industry out. I am tempted to say take the fight forward and install Ad Clickers https://adnauseam.io/ https://adnauseam.io/ in every browser you get your hands on.