3 ms·

I don't understand this mentality. If someone is fine giving a company some information, and the company uses that to give them a better product, where is the h

by chroma 7y ago

I don't understand this mentality. If someone is fine giving a company some information, and the company uses that to give them a better product, where is the harm? And what right do you have to stop those two parties from voluntarily exchanging goods and services?

JohnFen 7y ago
If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. The problem is the rampant data collection that is engaged in without my permission and/or knowledge, and that companies often forward that data to others. Targeted/behavioral advertising in particular has monetized that abuse. I would be thrilled if that business model dies an agonizing death. The amount of abuse on that score has been so extreme, and going on for so long, that strong legislation is clearly the only remaining option to at least stem the worst of it.
- filoleg 7y ago
  >If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. I fully agree, but it seems like under this legislation it becomes illegal to conduct a business in this manner. If I am fine with trading a certain set of my data for access to a service, I should be able to do so (if the service provides that option, obviously).
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    Nope, not illegal: > Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data. The change is from opt-out to opt-in.
- chroma 7y ago
  OK so if I understand you, you are worried that companies are collecting data on people and then using that data to give them more personalized ads. These ads may convince people to buy or do things that they otherwise wouldn't. It's not just that people would buy Chevys instead of Fords. They could be convinced to vote differently and support harmful policies. I hope that's an accurate summary of your view. I have a few points. First, I don't think targeted advertising is much more effective than your typical magazine ad, TV commercial, radio ad, or movie trailer. In all of those cases, the advertisers know the demographics of who is consuming that media and can target pretty effectively. And if targeting was far more effective than old school ads, advertisers would pay significantly more for targeted ads, but they don't seem to. CPC for Facebook and Twitter is about the same (~50 cents), despite one allowing for much more fine-grained targeting. And I doubt LinkedIn does better targeting than Facebook, but LinkedIn's CPC is 10x higher. Second, is this an instrumental value or a terminal value for you? eg: If all advertising were banned (or at least heavily taxed), would you no longer want a ban on companies storing customers information? If so, I'd like to hear why. Third, what if we could pass laws that caused the benefits of targeted ads to outweigh the downsides? For example: We could ban targeting for politics. Then people could still get ads for more things they want, such as some software that would help them or some new barbershop that opened near them. That seems like a win-win to me. Lastly, whenever I see an argument between to sides, I pay attention to emotions. In my experience, the less emotional side tends to be the more correct one. If a side mostly engages using disgust, anger, and catastrophizing, I get very suspicious. If I had to pick the more emotional side in this thread, it would definitely be the side that accuses the other of, "violating basic human decency", of being "horribly unethical", and doing "stupid privacy violating shit". On the other side, pretty much everyone against this law seems to think it's mistaken, not evil.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > I hope that's an accurate summary of your view. It's not, really. I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it being shared with others. What it's used for is beside the point. Marketing companies come into it simply because they are the most egregious bad actors when it comes to those two points.
- jonny_eh 7y ago
  > companies often forward that data to others Why not just outlaw that?
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    That should be part of it. Another part should be that the data can't be collected without my permission in the first place.

by chroma 7y ago

JohnFen 7y ago

If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. The problem is the rampant data collection that is engaged in without my permission and/or knowledge, and that companies often forward that data to others. Targeted/behavioral advertising in particular has monetized that abuse. I would be thrilled if that business model dies an agonizing death. The amount of abuse on that score has been so extreme, and going on for so long, that strong legislation is clearly the only remaining option to at least stem the worst of it.

filoleg 7y ago
>If I am voluntarily giving information to a company, and have been completely informed of all the purposes that it will be put to (especially which companies it may be transmitted to), then I have no problem with it at all, personally. And I particularly would not be inclined to say that others can't decide this for themselves. I fully agree, but it seems like under this legislation it becomes illegal to conduct a business in this manner. If I am fine with trading a certain set of my data for access to a service, I should be able to do so (if the service provides that option, obviously).
- laughinghan 7y ago
  Nope, not illegal: > Businesses can, however, offer “financial incentives” for being allowed to collect data. The change is from opt-out to opt-in.
chroma 7y ago
OK so if I understand you, you are worried that companies are collecting data on people and then using that data to give them more personalized ads. These ads may convince people to buy or do things that they otherwise wouldn't. It's not just that people would buy Chevys instead of Fords. They could be convinced to vote differently and support harmful policies. I hope that's an accurate summary of your view. I have a few points. First, I don't think targeted advertising is much more effective than your typical magazine ad, TV commercial, radio ad, or movie trailer. In all of those cases, the advertisers know the demographics of who is consuming that media and can target pretty effectively. And if targeting was far more effective than old school ads, advertisers would pay significantly more for targeted ads, but they don't seem to. CPC for Facebook and Twitter is about the same (~50 cents), despite one allowing for much more fine-grained targeting. And I doubt LinkedIn does better targeting than Facebook, but LinkedIn's CPC is 10x higher. Second, is this an instrumental value or a terminal value for you? eg: If all advertising were banned (or at least heavily taxed), would you no longer want a ban on companies storing customers information? If so, I'd like to hear why. Third, what if we could pass laws that caused the benefits of targeted ads to outweigh the downsides? For example: We could ban targeting for politics. Then people could still get ads for more things they want, such as some software that would help them or some new barbershop that opened near them. That seems like a win-win to me. Lastly, whenever I see an argument between to sides, I pay attention to emotions. In my experience, the less emotional side tends to be the more correct one. If a side mostly engages using disgust, anger, and catastrophizing, I get very suspicious. If I had to pick the more emotional side in this thread, it would definitely be the side that accuses the other of, "violating basic human decency", of being "horribly unethical", and doing "stupid privacy violating shit". On the other side, pretty much everyone against this law seems to think it's mistaken, not evil.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > I hope that's an accurate summary of your view. It's not, really. I object to data about me or my use of my machines being collected without my permission at all. Past that, I object to it being shared with others. What it's used for is beside the point. Marketing companies come into it simply because they are the most egregious bad actors when it comes to those two points.
jonny_eh 7y ago
> companies often forward that data to others Why not just outlaw that?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  That should be part of it. Another part should be that the data can't be collected without my permission in the first place.