3 ms·
I'm afraid you might not be seeing beyond the first-order effects: "ads are annoying, relevant ads are less annoying, therefore I like surveillance!" Consider a
by andrepd 6y ago
I'm afraid you might not be seeing beyond the first-order effects: "ads are annoying, relevant ads are less annoying, therefore I like surveillance!" Consider all the implications that ubiquitous surveillance by unaccountable private entities carries.
Plus, the fact that you can advertise extremely harmful drugs such as alcohol (or gambling) at all, not to mention do so precisely to those you figure are more susceptible to this manipulation is pretty disgusting in itself.
- TchoBeer 6y ago>Consider all the implications that ubiquitous surveillance by unaccountable private entities carries I've legitimately never seen an implication other than "I'm uncomfortable with it" that isn't illegal. >Plus, the fact that you can advertise extremely harmful drugs such as alcohol (or gambling) at all Yeah, advertising those things at all should be illegal.
- andrepd 6y agoMany such examples: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-meekness-fear-and-self-censorship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-sur... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html
- okareaman 6y agoCalling it surveillance is like Steve Ballmer saying about Google "we don't read your email." No human at Google is reading my email. They are scanning it and associating keywords to my account. Do this make me a marked man? Some might feel that way, but this technique is not very accurate and is only used to show me ads when they are going to show me ads anyway. Ads are part of the current reality whether we like them or not. Why not prefer relevant ads?