3 ms·
While this distinction is accurate, I'm not sure it's useful? If you can target with enough granularity, which is fairly typical of these modern ad networks li
by danpalmer 7y ago
While this distinction is accurate, I'm not sure it's useful?
If you can target with enough granularity, which is fairly typical of these modern ad networks like Facebook/Google, then you have the data about those users who click through by the fact that they saw that targeting. It may not be perfect data, but it's close enough to be incredibly valuable to companies.
I can't buy an email list from Facebook with salaries attached, but I can target those who have a salary in the range I'm interested in and see who I get through.
You're right that this is a distinction, but I think it has very similar outcomes.
- nerfhammer 7y agoIt's completely different and meant to be inflammatory rather than accurate
- bduerst 7y agoIt's an important distinction because without it, it implies some human being is reviewing information linked to your name somewhere, when in reality the information is being anonymously evaluated by algorithms to target ads.
- mostlysimilar 7y agoDisagree. The important point isn't whether or not an actual human is "spying" on my activity, it's that the platforms providing the targeted ads are not behaving responsibly with regards to the content being shown. I don't care about being shown ads for products I might buy. I care about targeted disinformation being fed to "persuadables" in order to affect massive political upheaval (current political breakdown in the United States, Brexit in the UK, other instances all across the globe in smaller nations.) The only important thing here is that e.g. Facebook has the data and sells access to nefarious actors. Selling the data "directly" or not isn't the point.