6 ms·

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 smal

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?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mr_custard 8y ago
  Woah there! disingenuous? Using the example of life-saving CPR as a "similar" example seems to be extremely disingenuous of you, and I suspect you know why. * CPR - almost universally considered a good & essential thing for all humans by any measure (sure, a small number of religious groups might beg to differ). * Targeted ads - well... not so much. wow.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    What? It was just an example about how defaults affect behavior, not a sneaky attempt to blur the idea of right vs wrong.
    - throwaway_9168 8y ago
      Although I am guessing you would suddenly start arguing for right vs wrong if I took your own idea about defaults and suggest that all governments which want to restrict Facebook's power (which is probably all of them by now) should just default to blocking access to Facebook and Instagram and Whatsapp unless people go to some government building and sign a release form saying that they are aware of all the consequences of using social networks and that they should not come to the government for help if, say, said social network swindles their kids of real money.
      - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
        I would say that, regardless of whether the outcome is right or wrong, we know that the default is incredibly powerful, so it's disingenuous to suggest that changing it makes no difference. Which was the original point as I understood it.
    - ionised 8y ago
      I took it as a thinly veiled attempt to paint advertising as axiomatically good. If the poster didn't intend the post to come across that way, he may be experiencing an inherent bias in his opinion, in that he believes advertising is self-evidently good and simply didn't consider that other people might not agree. I'm not sure that's any better.
chillacy 8y ago
What if the choice were between relevant ads and irrelevant ads? (targeting is the mechanism by which you can make ads relevant) For an example of irrelevant ads (minimally targeted), start reading your junk mail.
- brewdad 8y ago
  When targeted ads means seeing nothing but ads for TVs for the next month after buying a new TV, I'm willing to take my chances with the untargeted model.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    I would call those ads irrelevant ads, and that's a failure in ad targeting today. It's not like ad publishers enjoy wasting money serving impressions to you once you buy the product and fulfill the need.
dkrich 8y ago
Because you always have the option of not using the platform in the first place and/or deleting your account. Your willingness to sign in repeatedly knowing the trade-offs signals your agreement to the terms. Facebook doesn't owe anybody a free ad-optional platform to engage with people, they aren't a government entity.
- throwaway_9168 8y ago
  >>Facebook doesn't owe anybody a free ad-optional platform to engage with people, they aren't a government entity. Unless you are just claiming that shadow profiles are not a real thing [1], I think Facebook is becoming more like a government entity in the sense that you cannot "opt out" of Facebook any more than you can "opt out" of your government, or you can "opt out" of having any friends in your life. Unlike a government, which, even at its most corrupt and inefficient, is actually supposed to be built with a system of checks and balances to help serve its constituents, and in theory can at least be overthrown via coup or elections, the only thing you have with Facebook is this expectation that they don't "owe anybody" anything. Make no mistake, Facebook is devious enough to know this, and it also knows there are lots of "useful idiots" (and I don't mean you, I mean the others who think this point shouldn't even be up for discussion!) who keep saying Facebook doesn't owe anybody <anything> without acknowledging that we have a phenomenon here which has never been seen before. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/shadow-profiles-facebook-has-information-you-didnt-hand-over/ https://www.cnet.com/news/shadow-profiles-facebook-has-infor...

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?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mr_custard 8y ago
Woah there! disingenuous? Using the example of life-saving CPR as a "similar" example seems to be extremely disingenuous of you, and I suspect you know why. * CPR - almost universally considered a good & essential thing for all humans by any measure (sure, a small number of religious groups might beg to differ). * Targeted ads - well... not so much. wow.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  What? It was just an example about how defaults affect behavior, not a sneaky attempt to blur the idea of right vs wrong.
  - throwaway_9168 8y ago
    Although I am guessing you would suddenly start arguing for right vs wrong if I took your own idea about defaults and suggest that all governments which want to restrict Facebook's power (which is probably all of them by now) should just default to blocking access to Facebook and Instagram and Whatsapp unless people go to some government building and sign a release form saying that they are aware of all the consequences of using social networks and that they should not come to the government for help if, say, said social network swindles their kids of real money.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      I would say that, regardless of whether the outcome is right or wrong, we know that the default is incredibly powerful, so it's disingenuous to suggest that changing it makes no difference. Which was the original point as I understood it.
  - ionised 8y ago
    I took it as a thinly veiled attempt to paint advertising as axiomatically good. If the poster didn't intend the post to come across that way, he may be experiencing an inherent bias in his opinion, in that he believes advertising is self-evidently good and simply didn't consider that other people might not agree. I'm not sure that's any better.

chillacy 8y ago

What if the choice were between relevant ads and irrelevant ads? (targeting is the mechanism by which you can make ads relevant) For an example of irrelevant ads (minimally targeted), start reading your junk mail.

brewdad 8y ago
When targeted ads means seeing nothing but ads for TVs for the next month after buying a new TV, I'm willing to take my chances with the untargeted model.
- chillacy 8y ago
  I would call those ads irrelevant ads, and that's a failure in ad targeting today. It's not like ad publishers enjoy wasting money serving impressions to you once you buy the product and fulfill the need.

dkrich 8y ago

Because you always have the option of not using the platform in the first place and/or deleting your account. Your willingness to sign in repeatedly knowing the trade-offs signals your agreement to the terms. Facebook doesn't owe anybody a free ad-optional platform to engage with people, they aren't a government entity.

throwaway_9168 8y ago
>>Facebook doesn't owe anybody a free ad-optional platform to engage with people, they aren't a government entity. Unless you are just claiming that shadow profiles are not a real thing [1], I think Facebook is becoming more like a government entity in the sense that you cannot "opt out" of Facebook any more than you can "opt out" of your government, or you can "opt out" of having any friends in your life. Unlike a government, which, even at its most corrupt and inefficient, is actually supposed to be built with a system of checks and balances to help serve its constituents, and in theory can at least be overthrown via coup or elections, the only thing you have with Facebook is this expectation that they don't "owe anybody" anything. Make no mistake, Facebook is devious enough to know this, and it also knows there are lots of "useful idiots" (and I don't mean you, I mean the others who think this point shouldn't even be up for discussion!) who keep saying Facebook doesn't owe anybody <anything> without acknowledging that we have a phenomenon here which has never been seen before. [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/shadow-profiles-facebook-has-information-you-didnt-hand-over/ https://www.cnet.com/news/shadow-profiles-facebook-has-infor...