6 ms·

I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that can exist by knowing everything about me. And, frankly, I think it's ok if they do... as long as they have my perm

I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that can exist by knowing everything about me. And, frankly, I think it's ok if they do... as long as they have my permission. The nice thing is that this is what this change does. It makes it more clear who, and what, is sharing information about me. A world where we have apps and websites that pop up with an alert "This website will share information about you with Facebook, even if you don't login. This information may be able to identify you", seems reasonable to me.

violetgarden 6y ago
I had a minimal Facebook account that I wasn’t really using, so I deleted it. Before deleting, I downloaded the third party vendors that Facebook shared data with and was shocked. I almost am never logged in to Facebook and yet here was Home Depot, the company I get face wash from, etc all linked back to my account somehow, and I had no idea.
- CubsFan1060 6y ago
  Interesting. How do you get that information?
  - philk10 6y ago
    probably using this FB tool -https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-facebooks-tool-for-controlling-which-apps-and-sites-can-share-data-for-ad-targeting/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-f...
- ben_w 6y ago
  Are there any other stores near you that you could’ve used instead of Home Depot? The reason I’m suggesting in your particular case that this might have been a lucky guess rather than invasive Detective-Sherlock-type inference is that when I did the same to Twitter, I discovered that they thought I was interested in soccer (I’m not) and three languages I don’t speak and have never attempted to learn.
  - hungryforcodes 6y ago
    It wouldn't have made a difference. The problem is pervasive. I looked at my list on Facebook of the same data and also was shocked. It was hard for me to find websites I HADN'T visited. The most disturbing were entries for when I visited my online bank. What my bank needs to report to Facebook is a mystery to me.
  - violetgarden 6y ago
    That’s true! Some might be lucky. The face wash brand I use is pretty distinctive and not sold everywhere, and that was on the report, so I feel like there is a lot of truth in the products being linked back to me.
- netsharc 6y ago
  I use 1 email address for most online services (Facebook, and online shops), and I'm pretty sure the shops used my e-mail to look up my "ad profile" on FB. I wonder if they match people through other ways, like name and ZIP code (with Facebook knowing your ZIP code through harvesting your location through their mobile apps), or even more sinisterly, if a friend uploaded their address book to Facebook/WhatsApp, and said friend has conveniently organized their address book to link your name and phone number to your Facebook profile -- the same phone number you gave Home Depot..
- gumby 6y ago
  > so I deleted it I wonder if FB actually deleted it. FB, LinkedIn, etc maintain profiles of non-users as well, both to sell ads off property and, ahem, “to provide a better experience for new members”. I think very few people realize that those “share” buttons on websites provide tracking info to the respective sites simply by exposing them.
- tomcam 6y ago
  I think the more important question is... Home Deopt for face wash?
  - cactus2093 6y ago
    the etc implies this is a list of 2 different companies, I don't think he buys face wash from home depot
    - violetgarden 6y ago
      No no, I use sandpaper. So much cheaper than other exfoliating washes. But yes, I did mean to imply two different companies.
      - tomcam 6y ago
        Humor was intended but I really did want to know. Sometimes English syntax is ridiculous and I can be annoyingly concrete in my thinking.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      I am an idiot and actually took it at face value I’m sorry to say
CubsFan1060 6y ago
Ugh. The more I think about this the more complicated it becomes. I think most people would be pretty ok saying "I'm a part of a classic car community on Facebook, so I get ads on Facebook for classic car things". I think people would be less ok with "I played a game on my phone while standing in an auto shop. Now I'm getting car ads on my news site because game accessed my location, shared with facebook, who then shared with news site" I don't know how to make these different use cases clear without having pages and pages of explanation that nobody will read.
- elondaits 6y ago
  I don't mind that my ads are targeted based on my location, content of my messages, etc. ... What I mind is that nobody can assure who the buyers of my data are, or what they're really using it for. Facebook says "small businesses", but there are no guarantees it's not your government, a foreign government, your employer, your insurance company, a scammer, etc.
  - ebetica0 6y ago
    But Facebook never sells the data itself, it only sells targeting capabilities. The government can only say "display this ad to people who fit these categories", but they can never see those identities.
    - CubsFan1060 6y ago
      Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
    - theshrike79 6y ago
      The targeting capabilities are never fully revealed, even if you check the "why was I displayed this ad". It's always something generic like "reaching people who are over 15 and located in $country". ...then why the fuck is the ad about the exact same thing I was browsing 20 seconds ago on my work laptop or chatted about with my friend on Messenger? I've even got ads on FB properties about products I chatted on IRC with someone I've got no connections on FB with, but most likely our graphs have merged somehow. This is easy to test, turn off all blockers and go browse for some product you normally don't look for. A bread maker or a washer-dryer combo. Then count the seconds you start getting ads for that exact type of product on FB/IG.
aerosmile 6y ago
This response reminds me a bit of how politicians talk to each other. Politician A says: "I feel bad for SMBs that will suffer if we prioritize privacy." Politician B responds: "I totally agree. They should just simply ask me for my permission, that seems fair, no?" Politician B is likely aware that asking for permission is going to cause the outcome that Politician A is predicting and is unhappy about, so in a way they are saying: "My privacy is more important to me than the SMBs' ability to survive." Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable answer, and one that the majority of people will support. Except, that's not what they are saying. Their response ignores the inverse correlation between the two choices and paints a picture that represents the best of both worlds. Really smart and really effective - you help other supporters of your view ignore its downside and make them feel better about continuing to support it. I've been asking myself why people argue this way, and PG's article titled Refragmentation [1] helped me understand some aspects of the new world we're living in. An alternative explanation is that it is - ironically given the context - all Facebook's fault which has been reinforcing the echo chambers of ideologies. If you believe that the Earth is flat and you wanted to find some validation, Facebook will be happy to do that for you. Just search for "flat Earth", join the biggest Facebook group on that topic [2], and within days you'll start getting content (and friend suggestions) that will make it hard to escape that alternate reality. They will feed you with convincing arguments that are better than what you can come up with, so that the next time someone says: "Dude, what about the ISS?", you'll be able to say, "I agree with you and think you bring up a valid point. I also think that [insert an argument that cannot coexist with the concept of the ISS]." I am longing for the days when people would openly disagree with each other, because that forced them to actually listen to the arguments and then address them as opposed to talking to each other like politicians do, whose job depends on getting their constituents to support them even when their ideology is wrong. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794 https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  We're supposed to assume good faith here. Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.

violetgarden 6y ago

I had a minimal Facebook account that I wasn’t really using, so I deleted it. Before deleting, I downloaded the third party vendors that Facebook shared data with and was shocked. I almost am never logged in to Facebook and yet here was Home Depot, the company I get face wash from, etc all linked back to my account somehow, and I had no idea.

CubsFan1060 6y ago
Interesting. How do you get that information?
- philk10 6y ago
  probably using this FB tool -https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-facebooks-tool-for-controlling-which-apps-and-sites-can-share-data-for-ad-targeting/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/28/all-users-can-now-access-f...
ben_w 6y ago
Are there any other stores near you that you could’ve used instead of Home Depot? The reason I’m suggesting in your particular case that this might have been a lucky guess rather than invasive Detective-Sherlock-type inference is that when I did the same to Twitter, I discovered that they thought I was interested in soccer (I’m not) and three languages I don’t speak and have never attempted to learn.
- hungryforcodes 6y ago
  It wouldn't have made a difference. The problem is pervasive. I looked at my list on Facebook of the same data and also was shocked. It was hard for me to find websites I HADN'T visited. The most disturbing were entries for when I visited my online bank. What my bank needs to report to Facebook is a mystery to me.
- violetgarden 6y ago
  That’s true! Some might be lucky. The face wash brand I use is pretty distinctive and not sold everywhere, and that was on the report, so I feel like there is a lot of truth in the products being linked back to me.
netsharc 6y ago
I use 1 email address for most online services (Facebook, and online shops), and I'm pretty sure the shops used my e-mail to look up my "ad profile" on FB. I wonder if they match people through other ways, like name and ZIP code (with Facebook knowing your ZIP code through harvesting your location through their mobile apps), or even more sinisterly, if a friend uploaded their address book to Facebook/WhatsApp, and said friend has conveniently organized their address book to link your name and phone number to your Facebook profile -- the same phone number you gave Home Depot..
gumby 6y ago
> so I deleted it I wonder if FB actually deleted it. FB, LinkedIn, etc maintain profiles of non-users as well, both to sell ads off property and, ahem, “to provide a better experience for new members”. I think very few people realize that those “share” buttons on websites provide tracking info to the respective sites simply by exposing them.
tomcam 6y ago
I think the more important question is... Home Deopt for face wash?
- cactus2093 6y ago
  the etc implies this is a list of 2 different companies, I don't think he buys face wash from home depot
  - violetgarden 6y ago
    No no, I use sandpaper. So much cheaper than other exfoliating washes. But yes, I did mean to imply two different companies.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      Humor was intended but I really did want to know. Sometimes English syntax is ridiculous and I can be annoyingly concrete in my thinking.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    I am an idiot and actually took it at face value I’m sorry to say

CubsFan1060 6y ago

Ugh. The more I think about this the more complicated it becomes. I think most people would be pretty ok saying "I'm a part of a classic car community on Facebook, so I get ads on Facebook for classic car things". I think people would be less ok with "I played a game on my phone while standing in an auto shop. Now I'm getting car ads on my news site because game accessed my location, shared with facebook, who then shared with news site" I don't know how to make these different use cases clear without having pages and pages of explanation that nobody will read.

elondaits 6y ago
I don't mind that my ads are targeted based on my location, content of my messages, etc. ... What I mind is that nobody can assure who the buyers of my data are, or what they're really using it for. Facebook says "small businesses", but there are no guarantees it's not your government, a foreign government, your employer, your insurance company, a scammer, etc.
- ebetica0 6y ago
  But Facebook never sells the data itself, it only sells targeting capabilities. The government can only say "display this ad to people who fit these categories", but they can never see those identities.
  - CubsFan1060 6y ago
    Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    The targeting capabilities are never fully revealed, even if you check the "why was I displayed this ad". It's always something generic like "reaching people who are over 15 and located in $country". ...then why the fuck is the ad about the exact same thing I was browsing 20 seconds ago on my work laptop or chatted about with my friend on Messenger? I've even got ads on FB properties about products I chatted on IRC with someone I've got no connections on FB with, but most likely our graphs have merged somehow. This is easy to test, turn off all blockers and go browse for some product you normally don't look for. A bread maker or a washer-dryer combo. Then count the seconds you start getting ads for that exact type of product on FB/IG.

aerosmile 6y ago

This response reminds me a bit of how politicians talk to each other. Politician A says: "I feel bad for SMBs that will suffer if we prioritize privacy." Politician B responds: "I totally agree. They should just simply ask me for my permission, that seems fair, no?" Politician B is likely aware that asking for permission is going to cause the outcome that Politician A is predicting and is unhappy about, so in a way they are saying: "My privacy is more important to me than the SMBs' ability to survive." Which, to be clear, is a perfectly reasonable answer, and one that the majority of people will support. Except, that's not what they are saying. Their response ignores the inverse correlation between the two choices and paints a picture that represents the best of both worlds. Really smart and really effective - you help other supporters of your view ignore its downside and make them feel better about continuing to support it. I've been asking myself why people argue this way, and PG's article titled Refragmentation [1] helped me understand some aspects of the new world we're living in. An alternative explanation is that it is - ironically given the context - all Facebook's fault which has been reinforcing the echo chambers of ideologies. If you believe that the Earth is flat and you wanted to find some validation, Facebook will be happy to do that for you. Just search for "flat Earth", join the biggest Facebook group on that topic [2], and within days you'll start getting content (and friend suggestions) that will make it hard to escape that alternate reality. They will feed you with convincing arguments that are better than what you can come up with, so that the next time someone says: "Dude, what about the ISS?", you'll be able to say, "I agree with you and think you bring up a valid point. I also think that [insert an argument that cannot coexist with the concept of the ISS]." I am longing for the days when people would openly disagree with each other, because that forced them to actually listen to the arguments and then address them as opposed to talking to each other like politicians do, whose job depends on getting their constituents to support them even when their ideology is wrong. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html [2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794 https://www.facebook.com/groups/2205176794

pseudalopex 6y ago
We're supposed to assume good faith here. Politician B can believe most people will opt in. Politician A has a history of claiming the tracking is consensual and still hasn't plainly retracted the claim.