7 ms·

How are people being exploited? Where is the harm?

filoleg 6y ago
They get shown ads that might be more relevant to them than just an ad picked at random, which might make them more likely to buy the product displayed in the ad. I guess that could lead to some extra harm to their wallets, but otherwise I am with you on this one.
- erhk 6y ago
  The information necessary to do that is stored, could be used for other things in the future by that company, could be stolen, could be subpoena'd. It's also taken without explicit consent or explanation of what is recorded. Bullets are just pieces of metal and gunpowder, why are you afraid of them?
  - hugi 6y ago
    Note that they also don't just sell "ads", they sell psychological manipulation. Yes, product ad targeting is one type of manipulation but where the real danger lies is when they target us with ideology. It's an expressely evil system.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      Where does ideology stop? In some sense all the ads blend into one meta-ad, an implicit one, that teaches us what to value in life. I mean something of the same nature which used to be the "picket fence suburb house, 2 kids and a dog", but is something else today. Slavoj Zizek (controversial I know) has good observations about this, that ideology is precisely the whole framing, which is invisible from the inside. You don't notice it as something "sold to you", it's deeper than that, it's something that informs what you should strive for. Ideas like "if only you could afford XYZ, things would become so much more $positive_adjective". But not explicitly. Through implication, stories, association. That you need to work more, build a career, buy better things, or become free, express your inner authentic self through self-expression using this and that brand, this and that political slogan etc. I anticipate that this is already too much of a cliche for some people, while for others it's just a strange way to look at things...
- rizpanjwani 6y ago
  some hn guidelines, in case you might find them helpful: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
  - amznthrwaway 6y ago
    This would be more persuasive if Paul Graham followed them. But he routinely responds to the weakest, easiest to criticize version of people's arguments. (see his billionaire essay for an especially egregious version of this. If he allowed for candid feedback, he wouldn't have published, but he only allows yes-men into his life). He is also snarky and mean, quite often. The real rules are that you can be as big of a dick as you want, so long as you are supportive of billionaires, white people, and men. If, on the other hand, you want to criticize them, you may only use the meekest possible language, or dang will ban you permanently. As a meta-point, you are being a snarky asshole with the way you quoted the rules, but you won't get in trouble for it.
- andyjpb 6y ago
  Facebook don't "sell ads". Well, literally, they do. ...but the product they're actually offering is "behaviour". They sell access to the levers to influence behaviour.
- godelski 6y ago
  Why do people think ads only have to deal with buying stuff like your next take out meal or a book on Amazon? We have ads for politics, charities, public service, pubic image of famous people, etc. We have ads for basically everything. We've been doing this for over 100 years too! I'm pretty sure if ads only helped sell more hamburgers then politicians would spend their campaign money elsewhere. Surely someone in the last hundred years would have figured out a better way to optimize that cash flow. But just simplifying the argument to selling more hamburgers is pretty disingenuous.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    The previous poster made a typical response. The argument goes: "Ads are just how people learn about new products! If you have a local business, you can make a nice sign above your office/store, or the modern equivalent which is advertising on Facebook! Everyone benefits, we learn about new products, the market can function, people learn about alternatives and new competitors can efficiently enter the market and be noticed by consumers!" Then in practice there are way more ads that sell you a worldview, adjust your desires in some small way that's small in one iteration but can transform your values over the years. Also the problem isn't just the ads, but also the tools they use to keep you engaged with the ads and spend longer time on the platform. Their tactics follow the sparse rewards patterns that gambling also follows. They use lots of counter-intuitive patterns like intentionally throwing in irrelevant stuff, because it's how our brains are wired: we get hooked more if the interesting stuff only comes every once in a while, and otherwise it's boring. This gives the activity an overall unpredictable nature that makes our brains want to explore and understand and build a better model of this environment, to reduce this unpredictability. But if it's carefully designed and always in motion, shapeshifting in response to how the masses interact with it, it stays mysterious for our brain and we get hooked. It's worrying how many otherwise smart people dismiss this saying "whatever, I don't buy luxury cars anyway, who cares if I saw some ads for them?" (and we could go into how the car companies can benefit from you seeing the ad even if you never buy the car yourself) Marketing psychology and addiction psychology have developed a lot over the years and there is basically zero amount of this taught in normal schools. People just don't think in terms of these tactics. We are like some naive old trusting grandma in the eyes of the manipulators (who, by the way, aren't evil, they just want accomplishments, want to achieve metric targets, get good evaluations, get promoted, build their CV etc.).
hugi 6y ago
Have you been living under a rock for the past years?
cma 6y ago
An algorithm optimizes for engagement, so you can't rebut a racist or conspiratorial post without de facto endorsing and spreading it.
- godelski 6y ago
  I like to say "hate porn" because I think people understand it better. Clicks are clicks. You're more likely to click a sexist article about doctors and it's more likely to go viral than a post about the complexities and nuances of wealth distribution and tax mechanics.
avianlyric 6y ago
In this specific case, my data is being moved to California. Placing it in direct reach of the US government, which has not been historically shy about abusing that kind of reach. I would quite like my data to stay in the UK, where national governments I don't elect or pay taxes to, can't touch it.
- nyokodo 6y ago
  Except the UK and US security agencies share data freely through the Five Eyes alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Yes, and as UK citizen I can hold my government to account through the democratic process if they start freely sharing data on UK citizens to others in the Five Eyes alliance. Notably the Five Eyes alliance used this exact setup to avoid local laws and democratic accountability, I don't want it to be easier for it to continue. I sure as shit can't hold the US government to account.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      > if they start freely sharing data on UK citizens to others in the Five Eyes alliance. How will you know?
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        Another Snowden? Change in government? Does it really matter? Point is I help elect the UK government, that means I can change it. Does not apply to the US government, so the US government could put full page ads in the Daily Mail talking about how the abuse the data of UK citizens, and there's diddly squat I could do about it.
        bonoboTP 6y ago
taurath 6y ago
It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs who’s entire job is to make you spend more time on the platform and make more clicks. It’s invasive marketing on a level that has never occurred in human history, and also happens to have the effect of amplifying the craziest voices. It’s hijacking people’s psychology, creating fights when peace would be better, because fights are less boring. And you pay for it, just with the dissolution of society where you might’ve talked to your neighbors. How many families have been split because of Facebook radicalization of conservatives? Mine for one. I believe strongly that the social media and internet ad business models are at best amoral but responsible for the second order effects, much as coal plants are responsible for pollution. At worst they are making money off of making people crazy by giving every crazy person a megaphone and making sure you have to hear from them.
- tomcam 6y ago
  > It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs So Facebook apparently laid off 800 or so PhD‘s? I kid.
- 0x426577617265 6y ago
  Well said, really sums up the problem. People I know and even work with have fallen in this trap and I have no idea how to get them back out. It’s like they are a completely different person. It’s not just politics either - it’s this overwhelming amount of information that they are being fed about everything.
  - taurath 6y ago
    Yeah... I considered being a little more "both sides" about it but anyone with an objective view of reality can see how far off the deep end of conspiracies the average conservative has gone. My parents believe Obama was a muslim. They believe in a Deep State. They're open to conspiracies about every democrat in power being a pedophile. To those who might say "Blame them, not facebook" - I absolutely blame my parents, but I also blame facebook for putting links to those ideas next to photos of friend's babies and vacations. This isn't what people signed up for facebook for. They signed up so they could keep in touch with their family and friends, and post updates about their lives. They didn't sign up for it to become their #1 source of news carefully crafted to get them to click and confirm either their worst fears or highest desires, the objective truth be damned.
hypertele-Xii 6y ago
Your insurance company could raise your rates because you've been "liking" posts about extreme sports, for example, among many. And the more hands your data passes through, the more likely it ends up leaking when someone is inevitably hacked, because security is expensive and your data is cheap.

They get shown ads that might be more relevant to them than just an ad picked at random, which might make them more likely to buy the product displayed in the ad. I guess that could lead to some extra harm to their wallets, but otherwise I am with you on this one.

erhk 6y ago
The information necessary to do that is stored, could be used for other things in the future by that company, could be stolen, could be subpoena'd. It's also taken without explicit consent or explanation of what is recorded. Bullets are just pieces of metal and gunpowder, why are you afraid of them?
- hugi 6y ago
  Note that they also don't just sell "ads", they sell psychological manipulation. Yes, product ad targeting is one type of manipulation but where the real danger lies is when they target us with ideology. It's an expressely evil system.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Where does ideology stop? In some sense all the ads blend into one meta-ad, an implicit one, that teaches us what to value in life. I mean something of the same nature which used to be the "picket fence suburb house, 2 kids and a dog", but is something else today. Slavoj Zizek (controversial I know) has good observations about this, that ideology is precisely the whole framing, which is invisible from the inside. You don't notice it as something "sold to you", it's deeper than that, it's something that informs what you should strive for. Ideas like "if only you could afford XYZ, things would become so much more $positive_adjective". But not explicitly. Through implication, stories, association. That you need to work more, build a career, buy better things, or become free, express your inner authentic self through self-expression using this and that brand, this and that political slogan etc. I anticipate that this is already too much of a cliche for some people, while for others it's just a strange way to look at things...
rizpanjwani 6y ago
some hn guidelines, in case you might find them helpful: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  This would be more persuasive if Paul Graham followed them. But he routinely responds to the weakest, easiest to criticize version of people's arguments. (see his billionaire essay for an especially egregious version of this. If he allowed for candid feedback, he wouldn't have published, but he only allows yes-men into his life). He is also snarky and mean, quite often. The real rules are that you can be as big of a dick as you want, so long as you are supportive of billionaires, white people, and men. If, on the other hand, you want to criticize them, you may only use the meekest possible language, or dang will ban you permanently. As a meta-point, you are being a snarky asshole with the way you quoted the rules, but you won't get in trouble for it.
andyjpb 6y ago
Facebook don't "sell ads". Well, literally, they do. ...but the product they're actually offering is "behaviour". They sell access to the levers to influence behaviour.
godelski 6y ago
Why do people think ads only have to deal with buying stuff like your next take out meal or a book on Amazon? We have ads for politics, charities, public service, pubic image of famous people, etc. We have ads for basically everything. We've been doing this for over 100 years too! I'm pretty sure if ads only helped sell more hamburgers then politicians would spend their campaign money elsewhere. Surely someone in the last hundred years would have figured out a better way to optimize that cash flow. But just simplifying the argument to selling more hamburgers is pretty disingenuous.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  The previous poster made a typical response. The argument goes: "Ads are just how people learn about new products! If you have a local business, you can make a nice sign above your office/store, or the modern equivalent which is advertising on Facebook! Everyone benefits, we learn about new products, the market can function, people learn about alternatives and new competitors can efficiently enter the market and be noticed by consumers!" Then in practice there are way more ads that sell you a worldview, adjust your desires in some small way that's small in one iteration but can transform your values over the years. Also the problem isn't just the ads, but also the tools they use to keep you engaged with the ads and spend longer time on the platform. Their tactics follow the sparse rewards patterns that gambling also follows. They use lots of counter-intuitive patterns like intentionally throwing in irrelevant stuff, because it's how our brains are wired: we get hooked more if the interesting stuff only comes every once in a while, and otherwise it's boring. This gives the activity an overall unpredictable nature that makes our brains want to explore and understand and build a better model of this environment, to reduce this unpredictability. But if it's carefully designed and always in motion, shapeshifting in response to how the masses interact with it, it stays mysterious for our brain and we get hooked. It's worrying how many otherwise smart people dismiss this saying "whatever, I don't buy luxury cars anyway, who cares if I saw some ads for them?" (and we could go into how the car companies can benefit from you seeing the ad even if you never buy the car yourself) Marketing psychology and addiction psychology have developed a lot over the years and there is basically zero amount of this taught in normal schools. People just don't think in terms of these tactics. We are like some naive old trusting grandma in the eyes of the manipulators (who, by the way, aren't evil, they just want accomplishments, want to achieve metric targets, get good evaluations, get promoted, build their CV etc.).

hugi 6y ago

Have you been living under a rock for the past years?

cma 6y ago

An algorithm optimizes for engagement, so you can't rebut a racist or conspiratorial post without de facto endorsing and spreading it.

godelski 6y ago
I like to say "hate porn" because I think people understand it better. Clicks are clicks. You're more likely to click a sexist article about doctors and it's more likely to go viral than a post about the complexities and nuances of wealth distribution and tax mechanics.

avianlyric 6y ago

In this specific case, my data is being moved to California. Placing it in direct reach of the US government, which has not been historically shy about abusing that kind of reach. I would quite like my data to stay in the UK, where national governments I don't elect or pay taxes to, can't touch it.

nyokodo 6y ago
Except the UK and US security agencies share data freely through the Five Eyes alliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Yes, and as UK citizen I can hold my government to account through the democratic process if they start freely sharing data on UK citizens to others in the Five Eyes alliance. Notably the Five Eyes alliance used this exact setup to avoid local laws and democratic accountability, I don't want it to be easier for it to continue. I sure as shit can't hold the US government to account.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    > if they start freely sharing data on UK citizens to others in the Five Eyes alliance. How will you know?
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      Another Snowden? Change in government? Does it really matter? Point is I help elect the UK government, that means I can change it. Does not apply to the US government, so the US government could put full page ads in the Daily Mail talking about how the abuse the data of UK citizens, and there's diddly squat I could do about it.
      - bonoboTP 6y ago

taurath 6y ago

It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs who’s entire job is to make you spend more time on the platform and make more clicks. It’s invasive marketing on a level that has never occurred in human history, and also happens to have the effect of amplifying the craziest voices. It’s hijacking people’s psychology, creating fights when peace would be better, because fights are less boring. And you pay for it, just with the dissolution of society where you might’ve talked to your neighbors. How many families have been split because of Facebook radicalization of conservatives? Mine for one. I believe strongly that the social media and internet ad business models are at best amoral but responsible for the second order effects, much as coal plants are responsible for pollution. At worst they are making money off of making people crazy by giving every crazy person a megaphone and making sure you have to hear from them.

tomcam 6y ago
> It’s you vs a team of 200 PhDs So Facebook apparently laid off 800 or so PhD‘s? I kid.
0x426577617265 6y ago
Well said, really sums up the problem. People I know and even work with have fallen in this trap and I have no idea how to get them back out. It’s like they are a completely different person. It’s not just politics either - it’s this overwhelming amount of information that they are being fed about everything.
- taurath 6y ago
  Yeah... I considered being a little more "both sides" about it but anyone with an objective view of reality can see how far off the deep end of conspiracies the average conservative has gone. My parents believe Obama was a muslim. They believe in a Deep State. They're open to conspiracies about every democrat in power being a pedophile. To those who might say "Blame them, not facebook" - I absolutely blame my parents, but I also blame facebook for putting links to those ideas next to photos of friend's babies and vacations. This isn't what people signed up for facebook for. They signed up so they could keep in touch with their family and friends, and post updates about their lives. They didn't sign up for it to become their #1 source of news carefully crafted to get them to click and confirm either their worst fears or highest desires, the objective truth be damned.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago

Your insurance company could raise your rates because you've been "liking" posts about extreme sports, for example, among many. And the more hands your data passes through, the more likely it ends up leaking when someone is inevitably hacked, because security is expensive and your data is cheap.