3 ms·

> That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabl

> That being said - and it pains me to say this - but there is absolutely truth to the fact that the style of targeting now possible on FB & Instagram has enabled an entire world of very small, hyper-niche businesses that otherwise wouldn't exist. Businesses like that have no right to exist if their business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy. Even if we assume that these businesses exist thanks to facebook, the ends do not justify the means. The economic value added doesn't offset the privacy violations. It doesn't "make up" for it. > Facebook's access to user data should be curtailed significantly, and sadly, businesses likely will suffer. There doesn't seem to be a good, evident third option just yet. There doesn't need to be a third option. Facebook and businesses who rely on such granular data, which is able to be gathered only by massively violating privacy, can and should pay equally massive penalties and/or be wiped out. Yes, people are behind those businesses, and rely on data collection/tracking for their livelihoods, but honestly, they deserve no sympathy. They can get a job at Subway instead. The ends do not, and have never, justified the means. Whatever apple can do to drive a stake through the heart of Facebook (and goog and others, honestly), is a positive.

yunohn 6y ago
I feel like you’ve misinterpreted OP. Even after they explained themselves with clear disclaimers. They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things, without burning money competing for adspace with everyone else. This is absolutely true, you can ask lots of people, including tech nerds on HN who buy off Instagram ads.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  > They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things I feel they did acknowledge this. But added that this doesn't justify privacy invasion on a massive scale - something your not countering.
  - yunohn 6y ago
    > business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones.
    - wcarron 6y ago
      > OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones. As the OP, I would argue against this. I don't fully understand what you mean by the 'nature of capital and free markets' unless that's just a fancy term for 'the rich get richer'. Let's take... idk a knitting business for example. A single entreprenuer knits and sells hats. In no way, shape, or form, does successfully selling knit items require tracking people from all over the nation/state/city, and all the small personal details of their lives, in order to sell them hats. This is not to say advertising is not essential/important. But there are many options: A) cold-calls B) networking your friends/family C) print and post flyers D) Post on your personal/business social media accts E) have your own website F) Rent a billboard G) pay for space in magazines/newspapers H) try in-person sales, and so on and so forth. This winner-take-all mentality is bizarre. Just because carhartt, for example, will always sell more hats than "Nina Knitter Co." doesn't mean she can't run a successful business. Running a successful small business has never and will never require invading the privacy of your potential customers. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a morally bankrupt POS. Edit: To better address the quoted text: These businesses DO rely on ads, and that is entirely of their own making and their unwillingness to choose other avenues of growth/advertising that are not exploitatative on such a massive scale. AND, if they have explored those options and found that it is not profitable to do so, then they are complicit in the theft and violation of privacy.
- OzCrimson 6y ago
  Fine. But when I opt out I want to be truly 100% opted out. Actually, I'd prefer the option to opt IN if I want to be tracked. I think that's the real issue here. I know people who love targeted advertising. Great. Let them have it. But when I say I want no parts of it, my explicit withdrawal of consent should be honored.

yunohn 6y ago

I feel like you’ve misinterpreted OP. Even after they explained themselves with clear disclaimers. They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things, without burning money competing for adspace with everyone else. This is absolutely true, you can ask lots of people, including tech nerds on HN who buy off Instagram ads.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
> They meant that online ads have enabled small businesses to target niche clientele and make cool things I feel they did acknowledge this. But added that this doesn't justify privacy invasion on a massive scale - something your not countering.
- yunohn 6y ago
  > business model depends entirely on the invasion and flagrant abuse of privacy OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones.
  - wcarron 6y ago
    > OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones. As the OP, I would argue against this. I don't fully understand what you mean by the 'nature of capital and free markets' unless that's just a fancy term for 'the rich get richer'. Let's take... idk a knitting business for example. A single entreprenuer knits and sells hats. In no way, shape, or form, does successfully selling knit items require tracking people from all over the nation/state/city, and all the small personal details of their lives, in order to sell them hats. This is not to say advertising is not essential/important. But there are many options: A) cold-calls B) networking your friends/family C) print and post flyers D) Post on your personal/business social media accts E) have your own website F) Rent a billboard G) pay for space in magazines/newspapers H) try in-person sales, and so on and so forth. This winner-take-all mentality is bizarre. Just because carhartt, for example, will always sell more hats than "Nina Knitter Co." doesn't mean she can't run a successful business. Running a successful small business has never and will never require invading the privacy of your potential customers. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a morally bankrupt POS. Edit: To better address the quoted text: These businesses DO rely on ads, and that is entirely of their own making and their unwillingness to choose other avenues of growth/advertising that are not exploitatative on such a massive scale. AND, if they have explored those options and found that it is not profitable to do so, then they are complicit in the theft and violation of privacy.
OzCrimson 6y ago
Fine. But when I opt out I want to be truly 100% opted out. Actually, I'd prefer the option to opt IN if I want to be tracked. I think that's the real issue here. I know people who love targeted advertising. Great. Let them have it. But when I say I want no parts of it, my explicit withdrawal of consent should be honored.