4 ms·

> What ad networks do is the digital equivalent of filming and spying on people who walk by your storefront. What they do, how they do it and the effects it has

by kmlx 7y ago

> What ad networks do is the digital equivalent of filming and spying on people who walk by your storefront. What they do, how they do it and the effects it has on society are wrong. wait a minute. i know there are currently startups that offer this exact type of analytics. and from what i know these types of analytics are extremely beneficial to both consumers and store owners. what exactly is the problem here?

arkades 7y ago
> extremely beneficial to both consumers What "extreme benefits" do I derive from being filmed and analyzed by stores I happen to walk past?
- kmlx 7y ago
  you get better products. the store gets better sales. it's a win win all around. this is already happening and it's already providing value.
  - atoav 7y ago
    How do you get better products? What does a filmed image give you that isn't reflected by sales numbers? The goal of tracking isn't to make and sell better products, the goal is to create an environment in which the product you already got gets sold more. So essientially people who track you want to manipulate you into buying shit you don't need at prices you wouldn't pay unless manipulated. Tracking people who would buy your product anyways isn't all that interesting: you've already got them.
anoncake 7y ago
If analytics are beneficial to customers, why aren't they opt-in but instead businesses try hard not to let them even opt out?
- matz1 7y ago
  The value for the customer comes when they not opt in.
- kmlx 7y ago
  this question makes no sense. since on street analytics are already beneficial to everyone, consumers and providers, why should they be opt-in? they should be, and currently are, automatic opt-in with an option to opt-out. you are walking on the street, so any privacy is gone just from walking outside of your home.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    What doesn't make sense is to consider never leaving the house a realistic option. Nor does the phrase "automatic opt-in". And I hope this: > since on street analytics are already beneficial to everyone, consumers and providers, why should they be opt-in? is a joke. It's pure authoritarianism.

by kmlx 7y ago

arkades 7y ago

> extremely beneficial to both consumers What "extreme benefits" do I derive from being filmed and analyzed by stores I happen to walk past?

kmlx 7y ago
you get better products. the store gets better sales. it's a win win all around. this is already happening and it's already providing value.
- atoav 7y ago
  How do you get better products? What does a filmed image give you that isn't reflected by sales numbers? The goal of tracking isn't to make and sell better products, the goal is to create an environment in which the product you already got gets sold more. So essientially people who track you want to manipulate you into buying shit you don't need at prices you wouldn't pay unless manipulated. Tracking people who would buy your product anyways isn't all that interesting: you've already got them.

anoncake 7y ago

If analytics are beneficial to customers, why aren't they opt-in but instead businesses try hard not to let them even opt out?

matz1 7y ago
The value for the customer comes when they not opt in.
kmlx 7y ago
this question makes no sense. since on street analytics are already beneficial to everyone, consumers and providers, why should they be opt-in? they should be, and currently are, automatic opt-in with an option to opt-out. you are walking on the street, so any privacy is gone just from walking outside of your home.
- anoncake 7y ago
  What doesn't make sense is to consider never leaving the house a realistic option. Nor does the phrase "automatic opt-in". And I hope this: > since on street analytics are already beneficial to everyone, consumers and providers, why should they be opt-in? is a joke. It's pure authoritarianism.