5 ms·

How would this even be theoretically possible? I mean, if you know someone’s personal details, they per definition has lost that privacy towards you.

jabroni_salad 5y ago
Perhaps facebook could advertise to me using the data that I have put into their site directly rather than snooping on me on other websites through cookies.
- nickthegreek 5y ago
  Exactly. On instagram, I follow and like content on the d&d and 3dprinting hashtags, so show me related ads. But don't try and follow me around the internet to see what other sites I visit. This allows them to still personalize ads without me feeling that there is a private investigator tailing me everywhere I go.
Workaccount2 5y ago
Allow facebook into your private circle of trust and boom! personalized ads and privacy!
- uvesten 5y ago
  :facepalm: Why didn’t I think of that?
sp332 5y ago
Well, you don't need to know a person's name and home address to advertise. A profile could include a list of interests. The trouble is that identifying the user across different websites to build the profile requires, you know, an identifier.
phreeza 5y ago
At least theoretically, you could have the whole logic deciding which ad to show you running locally on your device, without the need to send any private data to Facebook?
- JohnFen 5y ago
  That just makes your device the spy. Sure, it's an increase in the amount of privacy, but it's not actual privacy.
  - phreeza 5y ago
    How is it different from your browser history being stored locally?
    - JohnFen 5y ago
      Because the issue isn't where the data is stored, the issue is what the data is used for. In this case, it would be used in a way that still reveals personal information about me -- for instance, in a FLoC-type setup, it's still being revealed which cohorts I'm a part of. Having the data stored locally is certainly better than having it stored in someone else's database. No argument there, that's an improvement. But that's just making the problem slightly less bad, not solving it. These sort of schemes just strike me as being sneaky ways of continuing to engage in the abuse that the adtech world loves so much. The major difference being mostly what machines are doing the tracking. Also, of course, your browser history isn't exactly private even though it's stored on your machine.
      - phreeza 5y ago
        So is the argument that personalized ads are inherently bad? Arguments against tracking/personalization I have heard in the past, which make sense to me, are that having all the data stored remotely gives a lot of power to an evil engineer or government to exploit your data. With a 100% local approach, based on data that is stored anyway, that aspect would go away. I don't see how in that world personalized ads are worse than unpersonalized ads. Ads in general can be argued to have negative externalities (though I am not 100% convinced of that), but if we take their existence as a given, and the choice is between personalized and unpersonalized, I think I would prefer personalized.
        5y ago

jabroni_salad 5y ago

Perhaps facebook could advertise to me using the data that I have put into their site directly rather than snooping on me on other websites through cookies.

nickthegreek 5y ago
Exactly. On instagram, I follow and like content on the d&d and 3dprinting hashtags, so show me related ads. But don't try and follow me around the internet to see what other sites I visit. This allows them to still personalize ads without me feeling that there is a private investigator tailing me everywhere I go.

Workaccount2 5y ago

Allow facebook into your private circle of trust and boom! personalized ads and privacy!

uvesten 5y ago
:facepalm: Why didn’t I think of that?

sp332 5y ago

Well, you don't need to know a person's name and home address to advertise. A profile could include a list of interests. The trouble is that identifying the user across different websites to build the profile requires, you know, an identifier.

phreeza 5y ago

At least theoretically, you could have the whole logic deciding which ad to show you running locally on your device, without the need to send any private data to Facebook?

JohnFen 5y ago
That just makes your device the spy. Sure, it's an increase in the amount of privacy, but it's not actual privacy.
- phreeza 5y ago
  How is it different from your browser history being stored locally?
  - JohnFen 5y ago
    Because the issue isn't where the data is stored, the issue is what the data is used for. In this case, it would be used in a way that still reveals personal information about me -- for instance, in a FLoC-type setup, it's still being revealed which cohorts I'm a part of. Having the data stored locally is certainly better than having it stored in someone else's database. No argument there, that's an improvement. But that's just making the problem slightly less bad, not solving it. These sort of schemes just strike me as being sneaky ways of continuing to engage in the abuse that the adtech world loves so much. The major difference being mostly what machines are doing the tracking. Also, of course, your browser history isn't exactly private even though it's stored on your machine.
    - phreeza 5y ago
      So is the argument that personalized ads are inherently bad? Arguments against tracking/personalization I have heard in the past, which make sense to me, are that having all the data stored remotely gives a lot of power to an evil engineer or government to exploit your data. With a 100% local approach, based on data that is stored anyway, that aspect would go away. I don't see how in that world personalized ads are worse than unpersonalized ads. Ads in general can be argued to have negative externalities (though I am not 100% convinced of that), but if we take their existence as a given, and the choice is between personalized and unpersonalized, I think I would prefer personalized.
      - 5y ago