10 ms·

> YouTube has an extremely invasive privacy policy which relies on using user data in unethical ways I just want to weigh in a counterpoint to make sure that t

> YouTube has an extremely invasive privacy policy which relies on using user data in unethical ways I just want to weigh in a counterpoint to make sure that this isn't the only voice people ever hear. I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. I think this is a case of straw-manning potentially legitimate complaints about Google's service by using the word "ethics" to skip the work of making an actual argument. Further I think products like this are actually unethical. They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. And btw, you can opt out of ads personalization on https://adssettings.google.com/ https://adssettings.google.com/ EDIT: I work at Google (not on ads or Youtube) and have worked at other large ads companies in the past. I work at these companies _because_ I think ads are ok, not the other way around. My views are my own.

ekianjo 5y ago
> who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn What? Who cares? They can have multiple revenue streams and they often do with Patreon and sponsored messages inside videos. That nonsense that they rely only on youtube ad money has to stop. EDIT; oh you work for Google! That explains everything. Nice of you to mention that explicitly, by the way.
- nohr 5y ago
  No one said it's their only revenue. You're making up words no one said. It is unethical to consume content without accepting that ad revenue is how its covered. That's it.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    You can make the case it's also "unethical" to track everything users are doing across the whole web with Google Analytics, and then using that data to sell ads to third parties. "Being ethical" cuts both ways.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    > It is unethical to consume content without accepting [ads] Well in my belief, ads are unethical. These two views don't reconcile. And since I'm in control of my computer, I get to decide if the ads play or not.
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      See it's sort of a non-argument. Saying something is "unethical" is just an emotive way of saying "I disagree with this". Because if "ads are unethical" under your definition of "unethical", then I think it's totally fine for people to do "unethical" things.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  Stealing from a rich man may not harm the rich man, but I still believe it's unethical. I'm saying that I think taking things without paying is unethical, while what Google does is not unethical (use user data to provide a service and sell ads).
  - Ostrogodsky 5y ago
    Google makes billions! every year putting ads on illegally copied copyrighted videos. Sure, they will take them down if the claim is made (especially by the big players) but for sure they are not going to return any money made. Some kid doing an small tool is wont to make 0.00000000001% at best. You are the juggler defending the rich baron stealing from everybody.
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      Two wrongs don't make a right. Google should not do that. It's bad that Google does that. It's also bad when others do it. However, Google is spending a lot of money trying to do that less. The difference in motivation and intention is important.
grey_earthling 5y ago
> And btw, you can opt out of ads personalization on https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated This leads to a sign in page. Is it possible to opt out of ads personalisation without a Google account?
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  yeah sorry, delete the "authenticated" part
gopiandcode 5y ago
> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. There are many creators who don't only rely on unethical privacy invasive ads and support more ethical donations based support systems. Just because a creator refuses to support a more ethical payment system, doesn't make it unethical to bypass participating in a system (the ad network) that actively harms you (by unethically violating your privacy).
lolinder 5y ago
> I think this is a case of straw-manning potentially legitimate complaints about Google's service by using the word "ethics" to skip the work of making an actual argument. I don't think that they're straw-manning, I think that they're simply not trying to persuade. The tool is meant for those who are already sold on privacy, and they didn't want to waste time that could have been spent explaining the tool.
sennight 5y ago
> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. Substitute "creators" with "collaborators" and maybe it'll be more obvious to you why this is a flawed argument. Anyway, I don't think you can even opt out of Youtube inserting advertisements into your uploads anymore, but back when you could it would result in a discoverability penalty.
- lstamour 5y ago
  That's true, you can't opt out of YouTube ads on your own uploads. YouTube still has documentation on how to turn off monetization: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en but since November 2020 they've updated their terms to now say: > Right to Monetize > You grant to YouTube the right to monetize your Content on the Service (and such monetization may include displaying ads on or within Content or charging users a fee for access). This Agreement does not entitle you to any payments. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms They more clearly state what it means over here: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-to-youtube%E2%80%99s-terms-of-service-november-%E2%80%9820?hl=en&msgid=83733719 https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-t... > For channels not yet in the YouTube Partner Program: > We added this new section to let you know that, starting today we’ll begin slowly rolling out ads on a limited number of videos from channels not in YPP. This means as a creator that’s not in YPP, you may see ads on some of your videos. Since you’re not currently in YPP, you won’t receive a share of the revenue from these ads, though you’ll still have the opportunity to apply for YPP as you normally would...
  - sennight 5y ago
    Kinda makes the inevitable conclusion obvious: non-fashion&beauty channels need not apply - non-legacy media will not be permitted much aside from topics that both have: 1) No possibility of generating an objection from the most sensitive of current and potential advertisers. 2) Do not compete with legacy media presently on platform. Makes you wonder about all those outrage mobs that targeted companies with adverts that had the bad luck of randomly appearing in videos that demonstrated wrong-think, and how they've ushered in network television 2.0 while sticking it to all the totally-real-and-definitely-a-threat-to-our-democracy-neo-nazis.
commoner 5y ago
Google (your employer) and other ad companies have already lost the war against ad blocking. Users have the right to limit the content they see, whether it be through a private self-hosted instance of Piped, uBlock Origin, Pi-hole, or an ad-skipping DVR. Even Google Chrome includes a built-in ad blocker (which only blocks ads on sites that display non-Google ads), so Google would have no moral standing to claim that Piped is unethical: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7632919 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7632919
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  My views are not the views of my employer
  - chokeartist 5y ago
    No one cares. Back to your cagie, wagie.
  - app4soft 5y ago
    Nobody can approve or disapprove your statement.
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      I think I get to be the authority on my own views. That is a disclaimer saying that I am not speaking on behalf of my employer.
      - ashneo76 5y ago
        And just like that I get to be the authority on when I am tracked or not. Google is unethical in how it goes and hides it and papers over it.
        username90 5y ago
        Google aren't the good guys (no big company is good) but they are still one of the least evil big companies out there. Even Apple is more evil. Apple doesn't personalize ads, but they are instead working hard to kill open computing which is way worse than personalizing ads in my opinion. Of course to an individual who can easily afford them choosing Apple today is better for you, but Apple winning their war and implementing their vision is way worse to you than Google winning theirs.
n_io 5y ago
Seems odd that someone would weigh in with such an aggressive counterpoint in defence of Google on their own volition… I’m always suspect of comments like these coming from said company’s PR team. I mean really, “Further I think products like this are actually unethical”? Did you really just jump to the defence of a near 2 trillion dollar company whose business model overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights?
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > I’m always suspect of comments like these coming from said company’s PR team. Don't rule out the possibility of "useful idiots" (not my expression - this describes people who are brainwashed to believe some company's PR and parrot that point of view for free)
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    Trust me, I'm pretty much the furthest thing from brainwashed a Googler can be. In fact you'd probably be surprised to learn that officially and unofficially, Google agrees with you much more than with me. My personal opinion is that other companies are much better at ads personalization, and Google is much better at building powerful technology that uses a shitload of compute and TPU, so long term Google wants a world with FLOC or similar, and essentially no individual tracking.
    - brynjolf 5y ago
      > Trust me, I'm pretty much the furthest thing from brainwashed a Googler can be. Why do you type like an AI then?
      - methyl 5y ago
        Because he’s not a native English speaker.
- kinjba11 5y ago
  Please tell us how Google "overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights" by providing free services? Just saying Google is evil doesn't make a good argument.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Ostrogodsky 5y ago
Is ethical to not disclose in this comment that you work for Google? 1% of the posters here at most will check that and the rest will assume you are an impartial observer.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I feel like it's not absolutely necessary, but it would be courteous to do so. Working in the pixel machine learning division (what I infer from 'computational photography for next-gen devices') likely means they have very little exposure, if at all, to the kool aid available to the Google Ads or YouTube teams.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    Being paid good sums of money by Google will certainly drive a positive bias towards whatever the company does. In publications you typically describe conflicts of interests you know, you might as well do it here too whenever you give an opinion if you have a stake in the company people are commenting about.
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      Should people who have never worked on ads or with user data in any significant capacity have to disclose that too? "I want to say that Google is unethical and ads are evil, but I've never actually worked on ads and actually don't know what data means in this context"
      - ekianjo 5y ago
        It does not matter whether you worked on ads or not. The fact that you have many friends at Google and spent years there has already shaped you as an employee to believe that whatever Google does is "probably not evil". This is not specific to working at Google, by the way, we all rationalize what our workplace(s) does.
        5y ago
contravariant 5y ago
Any particular reason you think personalized ads are ethical? Why do you consider it ethical to track the videos people watch, the subjects they search, the webpages they visit, and use this to make money off them?
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  My default is that a thing is ok, unless there is a good argument that it causes harm or violates some principle I believe in. But I can paint a more specific picture. I don't think any of that tracking harms the user, and on the contrary it makes ads and products better. Unlike Google and most of the world, I also don't believe the data "belongs" to the user. If you go to a website, the website owner should be allowed to tell anyone that you went there. I believe this should be protected speech, just as it would be protected speech if I saw you walk into my physical store and I sold that information to a third party. I believe this because I think the world would be worse without personalized ads, and because banning it violates my moral principles regarding speech.
  - oakpond 5y ago
    If someone created a platform that buys every available bit of data from Google about you in real-time and visualized that on a website in real-time, would you be OK with that? Suppose you would be OK with that, do you believe that Google should pay you for collecting that data?
ergot_vacation 5y ago
Every time I see bizarre comments like this, where the poster defends a vast, clearly corrupt and abusive company and attacks community efforts to combat said company, I can almost hear grinding noises coming from my brain as it tries to formulate an explanation for the the post. I usually bounce between two conclusions: some kind of mental problem, or naked corruption. I guess for this one I don't have to guess.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  You should also allow for people who honestly have a different viewpoint than yours, since tolerating and dealing with such people is part of living. >vast, clearly corrupt and abusive company You assert much, and prove little. Adding up everything Google does, it seems to me that it comes up well into the positive side, though some of the things they do are bad.
- pydry 5y ago
  If your identity is bound up in working for google you will need to somehow deal with the cognitive dissonance of accusations of your employer's unethical behavior. Either your identity has to be kept separate (i.e. working there can't be something you're proud of) or you have to challenge or downplay the accusations, because they reflect upon you. A great deal of googlers are proud of working there. I worked for what many would call an unethical company for a while but I was never proud of it. When people talked about its behavior I would usually agree with them, but some of my coworkers were proud and they would defend it or try to downplay the accusations (e.g. we're not as bad as X).
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    I've barely been working there for 5 months, my identity is not bound up in Google. I'm certainly not "proud" to work there, it's just a job, but I disagree that the company is somehow evil. Maybe consider the possibility that people disagree with you for reasons that have to do with their different evidence and experience rather than corruption?
- mgraczyk 5y ago
bredren 5y ago
What does not make sense to me is that YouTube Premium does not let you opt out of any tracking. So Google asks that people pay $12 a month to not see ads, but still uses watching behavior to build a user profile to advertise to in all other mediums. Do I have this correct? How does google explain the value proposition? Is the real cost of YouTube (sans tracking) greater than $12 a month?
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  I think that's a fair point, and that's the primary reason I'm not a Premium customer. However, it's important to distinguish this completely reasonable point, that the product may be overpriced or provide less value than it should, vs an argument that Google is "unethical" for offering it.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  Another explanation though, and this is from my inside view at other companies because I know nothing about Google's business model here. I would speculate that the average and 95th percentile customer experience with tracking is so astronomically better on average, across nearly all dimensions, that even after paying, fewer than 5% of users would prefer the no-tracking/personalization product experience. Personalized ads isn't just about getting you to click more. It's also about showing you fewer irrelevant ads. In fact on many sites that's way more important.
  - commoner 5y ago
    96% of US users opted out of app tracking in iOS 14.5. iOS has a majority market share in the US, and over a quarter of the mobile OS market worldwide. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide Based on this data, it seems extremely unlikely that 95% of users would prefer the "customer experience with tracking" on YouTube or any other mainstream social media site.
GiorgioG 5y ago
> I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  My salary doesn't depend on it. Lots of people who I work with do not agree with my views on this. In fact I'd wager that most people in my org would disagree with me. Either way, I joined recently and I'll leave at some point. My comings and goings from Google will have nothing to do with this, because it's not very important to me and I have always thought personalized ads were ethically ok.
  - vishnumohandas 5y ago
    > My salary doesn't depend on it. Given that 80% of Google's revenue comes from ads[1], it would be incorrect to assume this. Disclosure: Xoogler here. [1]: https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2021Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2021Q1_alphabet_earnings...
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      My salary may depend on ads, but that's not the point I was making. I was pointing out that my salary does not depend on my beliefs about ads. My evidence is that many with opposite beliefs receive the same salary.
      - pydry 5y ago
        It's difficult. It's not impossible.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Have you not been on the market lately? Any software engineer has nearly infinite opportunities, and the same is true for many other roles around IT. Dependence doesn't look like that.
Superblazer 5y ago
It is okay if it were only for ads personalisation, but everyone knows that isn't the case. They have too much data just for personalising ads, Google knows way too much.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  So to me, that's the preview of an argument, but not a complete argument. What is the actual bad thing or bad state that will be caused by Google knowing this information about individuals, or in aggregate? I think that when we weigh the harm against the good, we're likely to disagree about the balance. But I think I have more information about the good than people who have not worked at Google or Facebook, and I have just as much information about the potential and actual harm.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Could you share the potential and actual harm?
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    For one thing, all Googles data is presumably stolen one way or another by the NSA, which use it for things like industrial espionage, supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, probably a modern version of COINTELPRO and god knows what else.
    - scrps 5y ago
      I am not sure I'd subscribe to that theory. I am no friend to google but they have some very sharp people working in security to the extent I wouldn't be suprised if NSA tried to poach them. NSA getting caught pwning google would be a snowden-esque nightmare for them. Now some backroom deal between NSA and google for SOME data would be more believable, it never hurts to align incentives and have a three letter agency owe you a favor when senator so-and-so starts banging the break up & regulate big tech drum.
      - 5y ago
autoexec 5y ago
advertising is itself on ethically shakey ground since it so often crosses the line from providing information into outright manipulation. Targeted ads can be especially unethical when it involves the invasive tracking of individuals, the compilation, buying, and selling of dossiers, and it all taking place in an environment where much of that data is sold to the state directly or taken from companies by force and in secrecy (national security letters). Even if you could be 100% certain the ads being pushed on people against their wishes were not harmful to them directly, (and there is plenty of evidence that ads have caused great harm to people and their health) the entire system that enables and sustains targeted advertising is downright abusive and dangerous. Only the most narrow view of the issue could support the idea that it wasn't an ethical mine field and google's implementation specifically is full of problems.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn AdSense is typically a small portion of a channel's revenue (I've heard a few creators say it's around 30%), and all of the costs to produce a video are sunk. When someone with an ad blocker watches a video, they're still consuming the sponsored content, clicking on the affiliate links and buying the merch. From a business standpoint, they're still 70% as valuable as a "regular" viewer. I've never heard a YouTube creator complain about ad blocker or ask people to "like, comment, subscribe and whitelist". Linus Tech Tips even made a guide a while back on how to set up Pi Hole and only asked that people "buy a shirt". If they're not complaining, and people with ad blockers are still making them plenty of money, I don't agree with you that it's wrong.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  Did you try it out? https://piped.kavin.rocks/ https://piped.kavin.rocks/ This product also attempts to remove the other things you listed, including sponsored content (via SponsorBlock), ability to click affiliate links, ability to like or comment on the video, etc.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    Fair enough. I didn't check it out until after reading your comment.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
What if we the YouTube viewers (Google's ad targets) give the YouTube creators (Google's source of free labor) our moral and financial support directly, without letting the Google middleman take a cut. Viewers can opt out of ads personalisation but can uploaders opt out of "monetisation". Morever, can viewers and uploaders opt out of surveillance, data collection and how the collected data is used.
- dzikimarian 5y ago
  This doesn't happen, because Youtube as a platform adds value for creators and viewers. Everyone is free to host videos by themselves.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
    YouTube as a platform adds value for Google and advertisers. No one is free to host files witout agreeing to monetisation on Google and advertisers' behalf.
bryan0 5y ago
> I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. You really should educate yourself on the harm these types of targeted ads and videos have caused before defending your employer. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtube-anti-vaccination-video-recommendations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtub... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/16/youtube-ads-of-100-top-brands-fund-climate-misinformation-study https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/16/youtube-a... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/17/trumps-most-popular-youtube-ad-is-stew-manipulated-video/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/17/trumps-mo...
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  None of these links have anything to do with personalized ads. These are examples of ads that were very widely viewed, and the ad itself is what is claimed to be harmful. Why would targeting matter for ads seen by nearly every viewer, as is the case for your examples? Your second link isn't even talking about bad ads or personalization. It's talking about bad content with good ads not wanting to be associated with the bad content.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    Let me repeat what you said again because you seem to have forgotten: > I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. Emphasis mine. The videos and ads are hyper targeted to misinform people on some of the most important and dangerous topics of the day.
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      Ah ok, yeah I was debating the ads stuff, but you're right that I did also claim to be ethically ok with video recommendations. I think the latter is less contentious so I wasn't directly defending it. That one is easier for me to defend actually. I've worked on video recommendation and misinformation integrity (tangentially) at Facebook. I promise as a disinterested ex employee that you are just factually wrong. Facebook and Google both spend 10s to 100s of millions per year specifically to reduce the spread of misinformation. It's a very difficult technical problem because of avoiding false positives (taking down acceptable content) and because there are state actors spending huge amounts of money trying to do the opposite. There's no conspiracy here. You'd be right to say that Facebook has not done a perfect job, and that they didn't magically predict state actor election interference before 2016. But you'd be factually wrong to say that Facebook intentionally targets people with misinformation. Any site as big as Facebook, Instagram, or Youtube would have the same problem.
meowface 5y ago
>They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. What are you defining as "use of the data", in this case? Viewing their content? If so, that seems like a skewed way of phrasing it. If I were a YouTuber, I would personally either be okay with or even actively encourage ad blocking/skipping. (Easy for one to say, I know, but, as light evidence, I have some popular open source projects and have run popular websites without ever displaying any sort of ads or sponsored content when I easily could have. And I've strongly considered the idea of trying to make YouTube videos regularly.) I think I have a slightly different take on the issue compared to most people who dislike ads. I don't actually care much about the personalization or the data collection, as long as there isn't a way for an employee to easily drill down into specific people and track their individual activity by their real identity (i.e. a human manually stalking individuals personally, like a few Google and Facebook and NSA employees have occasionally been caught doing; I understand only a tiny percentage of them would ever do this). I just inherently don't like advertisements and advertising. I don't want to see ads, anywhere, ever. I pay for YouTube Premium - I'd pay for Twitter Premium / etc., if I actually liked Twitter. If that didn't exist: mine cryptocurrency in my browser if you want (as long as consent is requested) and give some of that to them. Or use something like Brave's attention token thing. Or anything else. Don't shove advertisements and sponsored segments in my face. Or, at least, ask if I want to see the ads, first, and let me choose "no". I know it's difficult for content creators to make a living, and I know it's difficult to offer a service like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook for free. But I don't like this world of advertising. I want out. I hope there will be people like yourself who instead work towards building systems that let us slowly transition away from advertising models, like what Brave's trying to do.
nxpnsv 5y ago
I think it should be opt in. A simple way to reduce a products privacy intrusion is to not use the product. Of course then the content creators still doesn't get paid, but at least you didn't use their data...
mynameismon 5y ago
Truth be told, I have similar feelings about ads. Several times, I have benefitted from ads on Facebook and Google, rendering several times their investments. For example, there was this one time when I had come across an ad on Facebook for a competition that I had found interesting. I applied, got selected, and eventually won a fully sponsored trip to NYC (worth about $4000). Now, would I want my data to be leaked *outside* FB/Google datacenters out into the public? No. Would I want to be constantly interrupted while I am watching a video? No. But would I want ads that benefit me and help me? Yes, sign me up. Also, regarding tracking, I believe tracking should be entirely optional (by law). Tracking certainly helps understand user preferences, and I personally always leave them on, because I want to help developers improve my experience. However, I do understand people wanting to turn them off, particularly on suspicious sites.
DavideNL 5y ago
Curious, do you think Oligopoly is okay too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly
minusf 5y ago
> And btw, you can opt out of ads personalization on https://adssettings.google.com/ https://adssettings.google.com/ ads are not unethical per se. what i find unethical is the on by default tracking apparatus/personalized ads following me around and trying to learn what i like/want. show me random ads like billboards first, and if i want tracking, i'll tell you.
csydas 5y ago
Few points: 1. To turn it on/off means they're still tracking it somehow regardless. I'm not logged into any google service on my machine right now, and yet disabling the features on the link above returned that it was turned off for this browser and device. 2. This was on by default 3. So it would seem that Google was tracking me even though I wasn't logged in as well as any other number of users; I wasn't using their services, yet I was generating data for Google without my consent at all. 4. I find your use of ethics here semantically deceptive; it's distracting the above actions of Google performing unauthorized collection of data on person(s) by discussing an action regarding the relationship of content creators and viewers. 5. Google's collection of data to personalize ads is unethical in that my data and my information, as well as the information of many others, without their explicit consent. In countries where GDPR is enforced, Google creates a full screen modal which does not allow you to advance without either blocking the element or agreeing to data collection, which is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of GDPR. 6. The discussion is not about whether ads are okay or not okay, it is about the system by which ads and data collected to sustain the ad system is generate is okay or not, which it is not for the above reasons and many more. I cannot agree with any of your points as I see them as dismissive of the core issues and a justification of shady business practices that seek to simply gobble up information on all users regardless of whether they use Google's services or not. These points you've raised do not address the behavior of Google nor the purposes of the application at all, and are only tangentially related to the comment on the ethics of modern advertising. The discussion about the content creators and the viewers is not Google's discussion -- Google is part of the system that hosts and pays the content creators, but the discussion about revenue streams for creators is one for the creators and their audience. Google trying to shoehorn themselves into such a discussion when alternate revenue streams exist that can be used. How creators want to handle that is their business. Arguably, Google has made this situation even worse for creators by: - Reducing ad revenue for creators year after year - Not providing contemporary features that other fast growing and dominant platforms have given their creators (see: Instagram, TikTok, and other contemporaries) - By treating more substantial revenue streams for content creators aggressive until only very recently (previously it used to actively cut-off patreon links for small time channels that weren't part of the Partner system) - By by providing the same level of tooling and control over works that other platforms do - By aggressively demonetizing content creators that have any DCMA claim raised against them regardless of the validity of the claim Google/Youtube and all of their partner items are aggressive towards consumers and abusive towards the content creators using its platforms. The actual good actors on these platforms suffer for minor clerical mistakes or because of aggressive automated systems that cannot be contested while bad actors continue to abuse the system and profit from it. Users and content creators may have benefited from Google/Youtube and still have a dependency on its ad revenue, but it comes with extreme risk to rely on it now and with very sketchy behavior in order to support the system, all while Google and bad actors profit. For the reasons above, I find your post extremely disingenuous, and your opinion on advertisements far too lackadaisical.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Fice 5y ago
> I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. Advertising does not simply make people aware about some goods and services, it often works by manipulating peoples desires and fears. And to manipulate effectively, ad companies need to collect as much information as possible about every person. Google collects and manipulates at scale when it becomes a threat to society and culture.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality ... to users. .... For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded [services] will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine" http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
ignoramous 5y ago
> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. YouTubers share a percentage of the revenue with Google because it has a strangle-hold on online streaming. Platforms building frontends are chipping away at YouTube's moat within means which net neutrality and interoperability make it possible. > I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. If viewers want nothing to do with YouTube, it is in creator's best interest then to engage with businesses building alternatives. If this niche service becomes any popular, then perhaps, the creators would do well to listen to their viewers, and a new model around revenue can be developed.
kerkeslager 5y ago
The idea that blocking ads is unethical because it harms content creators would have a lot more weight if YouTube didn't pay content creators such a pittance. YouTube is a middle-man that has inserted itself between content creators and content consumers so they can collect rent, and they've happily fucked over content creators every single time it has served their bottom line to do so. Viewing YouTube ads supports YouTube more than it does content creators--you can make some argument that maybe the opaque monetization somehow benefits creators more than YouTube, but there can be no question that the power is firmly in YouTube's hands. It's bad for content creators, who have to constantly worry about frivolous copyright claims, demonetization, and the mysterious algorithm causing them to lose views and subscribers. And it's bad for consumers, who end up with a watered down and censored version of content, with the ubiquitious "like and subscribe!" and "this episode sponsored by" constantly being rammed down their throat even when using an adblocker. If you want to support content creators, support content creators, not YouTube. I make recurring donations to a few different YouTube artists and they get more money from me than they would if I didn't use an adblocker.
- jsnell 5y ago
  > Viewing YouTube ads supports YouTube more than it does content creators That's not correct. The YT ad revenue split is 55% to the creator, 45% to YouTube. If it's the case that creators are getting a pittance, it's only because YT is getting even less. > I make recurring donations to a few different YouTube artists and they get more money from me than they would if I didn't use an adblocker. And the creators whose YT content you watch, but don't donate to? Would they perhaps be making less money?

ekianjo 5y ago

> who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn What? Who cares? They can have multiple revenue streams and they often do with Patreon and sponsored messages inside videos. That nonsense that they rely only on youtube ad money has to stop. EDIT; oh you work for Google! That explains everything. Nice of you to mention that explicitly, by the way.

nohr 5y ago
No one said it's their only revenue. You're making up words no one said. It is unethical to consume content without accepting that ad revenue is how its covered. That's it.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  You can make the case it's also "unethical" to track everything users are doing across the whole web with Google Analytics, and then using that data to sell ads to third parties. "Being ethical" cuts both ways.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  > It is unethical to consume content without accepting [ads] Well in my belief, ads are unethical. These two views don't reconcile. And since I'm in control of my computer, I get to decide if the ads play or not.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    See it's sort of a non-argument. Saying something is "unethical" is just an emotive way of saying "I disagree with this". Because if "ads are unethical" under your definition of "unethical", then I think it's totally fine for people to do "unethical" things.
mgraczyk 5y ago
Stealing from a rich man may not harm the rich man, but I still believe it's unethical. I'm saying that I think taking things without paying is unethical, while what Google does is not unethical (use user data to provide a service and sell ads).
- Ostrogodsky 5y ago
  Google makes billions! every year putting ads on illegally copied copyrighted videos. Sure, they will take them down if the claim is made (especially by the big players) but for sure they are not going to return any money made. Some kid doing an small tool is wont to make 0.00000000001% at best. You are the juggler defending the rich baron stealing from everybody.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right. Google should not do that. It's bad that Google does that. It's also bad when others do it. However, Google is spending a lot of money trying to do that less. The difference in motivation and intention is important.

grey_earthling 5y ago

> And btw, you can opt out of ads personalization on https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated This leads to a sign in page. Is it possible to opt out of ads personalisation without a Google account?

mgraczyk 5y ago
yeah sorry, delete the "authenticated" part

gopiandcode 5y ago

> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. There are many creators who don't only rely on unethical privacy invasive ads and support more ethical donations based support systems. Just because a creator refuses to support a more ethical payment system, doesn't make it unethical to bypass participating in a system (the ad network) that actively harms you (by unethically violating your privacy).

lolinder 5y ago

> I think this is a case of straw-manning potentially legitimate complaints about Google's service by using the word "ethics" to skip the work of making an actual argument. I don't think that they're straw-manning, I think that they're simply not trying to persuade. The tool is meant for those who are already sold on privacy, and they didn't want to waste time that could have been spent explaining the tool.

sennight 5y ago

> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. Substitute "creators" with "collaborators" and maybe it'll be more obvious to you why this is a flawed argument. Anyway, I don't think you can even opt out of Youtube inserting advertisements into your uploads anymore, but back when you could it would result in a discoverability penalty.

lstamour 5y ago
That's true, you can't opt out of YouTube ads on your own uploads. YouTube still has documentation on how to turn off monetization: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en but since November 2020 they've updated their terms to now say: > Right to Monetize > You grant to YouTube the right to monetize your Content on the Service (and such monetization may include displaying ads on or within Content or charging users a fee for access). This Agreement does not entitle you to any payments. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms They more clearly state what it means over here: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-to-youtube%E2%80%99s-terms-of-service-november-%E2%80%9820?hl=en&msgid=83733719 https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-t... > For channels not yet in the YouTube Partner Program: > We added this new section to let you know that, starting today we’ll begin slowly rolling out ads on a limited number of videos from channels not in YPP. This means as a creator that’s not in YPP, you may see ads on some of your videos. Since you’re not currently in YPP, you won’t receive a share of the revenue from these ads, though you’ll still have the opportunity to apply for YPP as you normally would...
- sennight 5y ago
  Kinda makes the inevitable conclusion obvious: non-fashion&beauty channels need not apply - non-legacy media will not be permitted much aside from topics that both have: 1) No possibility of generating an objection from the most sensitive of current and potential advertisers. 2) Do not compete with legacy media presently on platform. Makes you wonder about all those outrage mobs that targeted companies with adverts that had the bad luck of randomly appearing in videos that demonstrated wrong-think, and how they've ushered in network television 2.0 while sticking it to all the totally-real-and-definitely-a-threat-to-our-democracy-neo-nazis.

commoner 5y ago

Google (your employer) and other ad companies have already lost the war against ad blocking. Users have the right to limit the content they see, whether it be through a private self-hosted instance of Piped, uBlock Origin, Pi-hole, or an ad-skipping DVR. Even Google Chrome includes a built-in ad blocker (which only blocks ads on sites that display non-Google ads), so Google would have no moral standing to claim that Piped is unethical: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7632919 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7632919

mgraczyk 5y ago
My views are not the views of my employer
- chokeartist 5y ago
  No one cares. Back to your cagie, wagie.
- app4soft 5y ago
  Nobody can approve or disapprove your statement.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    I think I get to be the authority on my own views. That is a disclaimer saying that I am not speaking on behalf of my employer.
    - ashneo76 5y ago
      And just like that I get to be the authority on when I am tracked or not. Google is unethical in how it goes and hides it and papers over it.
      - username90 5y ago
        Google aren't the good guys (no big company is good) but they are still one of the least evil big companies out there. Even Apple is more evil. Apple doesn't personalize ads, but they are instead working hard to kill open computing which is way worse than personalizing ads in my opinion. Of course to an individual who can easily afford them choosing Apple today is better for you, but Apple winning their war and implementing their vision is way worse to you than Google winning theirs.

n_io 5y ago

Seems odd that someone would weigh in with such an aggressive counterpoint in defence of Google on their own volition… I’m always suspect of comments like these coming from said company’s PR team. I mean really, “Further I think products like this are actually unethical”? Did you really just jump to the defence of a near 2 trillion dollar company whose business model overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights?

ekianjo 5y ago
> I’m always suspect of comments like these coming from said company’s PR team. Don't rule out the possibility of "useful idiots" (not my expression - this describes people who are brainwashed to believe some company's PR and parrot that point of view for free)
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  Trust me, I'm pretty much the furthest thing from brainwashed a Googler can be. In fact you'd probably be surprised to learn that officially and unofficially, Google agrees with you much more than with me. My personal opinion is that other companies are much better at ads personalization, and Google is much better at building powerful technology that uses a shitload of compute and TPU, so long term Google wants a world with FLOC or similar, and essentially no individual tracking.
  - brynjolf 5y ago
    > Trust me, I'm pretty much the furthest thing from brainwashed a Googler can be. Why do you type like an AI then?
    - methyl 5y ago
      Because he’s not a native English speaker.
kinjba11 5y ago
Please tell us how Google "overtly threatens some of our most fundamental human rights" by providing free services? Just saying Google is evil doesn't make a good argument.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Ostrogodsky 5y ago

Is ethical to not disclose in this comment that you work for Google? 1% of the posters here at most will check that and the rest will assume you are an impartial observer.

judge2020 5y ago
I feel like it's not absolutely necessary, but it would be courteous to do so. Working in the pixel machine learning division (what I infer from 'computational photography for next-gen devices') likely means they have very little exposure, if at all, to the kool aid available to the Google Ads or YouTube teams.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  Being paid good sums of money by Google will certainly drive a positive bias towards whatever the company does. In publications you typically describe conflicts of interests you know, you might as well do it here too whenever you give an opinion if you have a stake in the company people are commenting about.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    Should people who have never worked on ads or with user data in any significant capacity have to disclose that too? "I want to say that Google is unethical and ads are evil, but I've never actually worked on ads and actually don't know what data means in this context"
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      It does not matter whether you worked on ads or not. The fact that you have many friends at Google and spent years there has already shaped you as an employee to believe that whatever Google does is "probably not evil". This is not specific to working at Google, by the way, we all rationalize what our workplace(s) does.
      - 5y ago

contravariant 5y ago

Any particular reason you think personalized ads are ethical? Why do you consider it ethical to track the videos people watch, the subjects they search, the webpages they visit, and use this to make money off them?

mgraczyk 5y ago
My default is that a thing is ok, unless there is a good argument that it causes harm or violates some principle I believe in. But I can paint a more specific picture. I don't think any of that tracking harms the user, and on the contrary it makes ads and products better. Unlike Google and most of the world, I also don't believe the data "belongs" to the user. If you go to a website, the website owner should be allowed to tell anyone that you went there. I believe this should be protected speech, just as it would be protected speech if I saw you walk into my physical store and I sold that information to a third party. I believe this because I think the world would be worse without personalized ads, and because banning it violates my moral principles regarding speech.
- oakpond 5y ago
  If someone created a platform that buys every available bit of data from Google about you in real-time and visualized that on a website in real-time, would you be OK with that? Suppose you would be OK with that, do you believe that Google should pay you for collecting that data?

ergot_vacation 5y ago

Every time I see bizarre comments like this, where the poster defends a vast, clearly corrupt and abusive company and attacks community efforts to combat said company, I can almost hear grinding noises coming from my brain as it tries to formulate an explanation for the the post. I usually bounce between two conclusions: some kind of mental problem, or naked corruption. I guess for this one I don't have to guess.

tomjen3 5y ago
You should also allow for people who honestly have a different viewpoint than yours, since tolerating and dealing with such people is part of living. >vast, clearly corrupt and abusive company You assert much, and prove little. Adding up everything Google does, it seems to me that it comes up well into the positive side, though some of the things they do are bad.
pydry 5y ago
If your identity is bound up in working for google you will need to somehow deal with the cognitive dissonance of accusations of your employer's unethical behavior. Either your identity has to be kept separate (i.e. working there can't be something you're proud of) or you have to challenge or downplay the accusations, because they reflect upon you. A great deal of googlers are proud of working there. I worked for what many would call an unethical company for a while but I was never proud of it. When people talked about its behavior I would usually agree with them, but some of my coworkers were proud and they would defend it or try to downplay the accusations (e.g. we're not as bad as X).
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  I've barely been working there for 5 months, my identity is not bound up in Google. I'm certainly not "proud" to work there, it's just a job, but I disagree that the company is somehow evil. Maybe consider the possibility that people disagree with you for reasons that have to do with their different evidence and experience rather than corruption?
mgraczyk 5y ago

bredren 5y ago

What does not make sense to me is that YouTube Premium does not let you opt out of any tracking. So Google asks that people pay $12 a month to not see ads, but still uses watching behavior to build a user profile to advertise to in all other mediums. Do I have this correct? How does google explain the value proposition? Is the real cost of YouTube (sans tracking) greater than $12 a month?

mgraczyk 5y ago
I think that's a fair point, and that's the primary reason I'm not a Premium customer. However, it's important to distinguish this completely reasonable point, that the product may be overpriced or provide less value than it should, vs an argument that Google is "unethical" for offering it.
mgraczyk 5y ago
Another explanation though, and this is from my inside view at other companies because I know nothing about Google's business model here. I would speculate that the average and 95th percentile customer experience with tracking is so astronomically better on average, across nearly all dimensions, that even after paying, fewer than 5% of users would prefer the no-tracking/personalization product experience. Personalized ads isn't just about getting you to click more. It's also about showing you fewer irrelevant ads. In fact on many sites that's way more important.
- commoner 5y ago
  96% of US users opted out of app tracking in iOS 14.5. iOS has a majority market share in the US, and over a quarter of the mobile OS market worldwide. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide Based on this data, it seems extremely unlikely that 95% of users would prefer the "customer experience with tracking" on YouTube or any other mainstream social media site.

GiorgioG 5y ago

> I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

mgraczyk 5y ago
My salary doesn't depend on it. Lots of people who I work with do not agree with my views on this. In fact I'd wager that most people in my org would disagree with me. Either way, I joined recently and I'll leave at some point. My comings and goings from Google will have nothing to do with this, because it's not very important to me and I have always thought personalized ads were ethically ok.
- vishnumohandas 5y ago
  > My salary doesn't depend on it. Given that 80% of Google's revenue comes from ads[1], it would be incorrect to assume this. Disclosure: Xoogler here. [1]: https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2021Q1_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2021Q1_alphabet_earnings...
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    My salary may depend on ads, but that's not the point I was making. I was pointing out that my salary does not depend on my beliefs about ads. My evidence is that many with opposite beliefs receive the same salary.
    - pydry 5y ago
      It's difficult. It's not impossible.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Have you not been on the market lately? Any software engineer has nearly infinite opportunities, and the same is true for many other roles around IT. Dependence doesn't look like that.

Superblazer 5y ago

It is okay if it were only for ads personalisation, but everyone knows that isn't the case. They have too much data just for personalising ads, Google knows way too much.

mgraczyk 5y ago
So to me, that's the preview of an argument, but not a complete argument. What is the actual bad thing or bad state that will be caused by Google knowing this information about individuals, or in aggregate? I think that when we weigh the harm against the good, we're likely to disagree about the balance. But I think I have more information about the good than people who have not worked at Google or Facebook, and I have just as much information about the potential and actual harm.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Could you share the potential and actual harm?
- tomjen3 5y ago
  For one thing, all Googles data is presumably stolen one way or another by the NSA, which use it for things like industrial espionage, supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia, probably a modern version of COINTELPRO and god knows what else.
  - scrps 5y ago
    I am not sure I'd subscribe to that theory. I am no friend to google but they have some very sharp people working in security to the extent I wouldn't be suprised if NSA tried to poach them. NSA getting caught pwning google would be a snowden-esque nightmare for them. Now some backroom deal between NSA and google for SOME data would be more believable, it never hurts to align incentives and have a three letter agency owe you a favor when senator so-and-so starts banging the break up & regulate big tech drum.
    - 5y ago

autoexec 5y ago

advertising is itself on ethically shakey ground since it so often crosses the line from providing information into outright manipulation. Targeted ads can be especially unethical when it involves the invasive tracking of individuals, the compilation, buying, and selling of dossiers, and it all taking place in an environment where much of that data is sold to the state directly or taken from companies by force and in secrecy (national security letters). Even if you could be 100% certain the ads being pushed on people against their wishes were not harmful to them directly, (and there is plenty of evidence that ads have caused great harm to people and their health) the entire system that enables and sustains targeted advertising is downright abusive and dangerous. Only the most narrow view of the issue could support the idea that it wasn't an ethical mine field and google's implementation specifically is full of problems.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn AdSense is typically a small portion of a channel's revenue (I've heard a few creators say it's around 30%), and all of the costs to produce a video are sunk. When someone with an ad blocker watches a video, they're still consuming the sponsored content, clicking on the affiliate links and buying the merch. From a business standpoint, they're still 70% as valuable as a "regular" viewer. I've never heard a YouTube creator complain about ad blocker or ask people to "like, comment, subscribe and whitelist". Linus Tech Tips even made a guide a while back on how to set up Pi Hole and only asked that people "buy a shirt". If they're not complaining, and people with ad blockers are still making them plenty of money, I don't agree with you that it's wrong.

mgraczyk 5y ago
Did you try it out? https://piped.kavin.rocks/ https://piped.kavin.rocks/ This product also attempts to remove the other things you listed, including sponsored content (via SponsorBlock), ability to click affiliate links, ability to like or comment on the video, etc.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Fair enough. I didn't check it out until after reading your comment.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

What if we the YouTube viewers (Google's ad targets) give the YouTube creators (Google's source of free labor) our moral and financial support directly, without letting the Google middleman take a cut. Viewers can opt out of ads personalisation but can uploaders opt out of "monetisation". Morever, can viewers and uploaders opt out of surveillance, data collection and how the collected data is used.

dzikimarian 5y ago
This doesn't happen, because Youtube as a platform adds value for creators and viewers. Everyone is free to host videos by themselves.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  YouTube as a platform adds value for Google and advertisers. No one is free to host files witout agreeing to monetisation on Google and advertisers' behalf.

bryan0 5y ago

> I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. You really should educate yourself on the harm these types of targeted ads and videos have caused before defending your employer. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtube-anti-vaccination-video-recommendations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtub... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/16/youtube-ads-of-100-top-brands-fund-climate-misinformation-study https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/16/youtube-a... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/17/trumps-most-popular-youtube-ad-is-stew-manipulated-video/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/17/trumps-mo...

mgraczyk 5y ago
None of these links have anything to do with personalized ads. These are examples of ads that were very widely viewed, and the ad itself is what is claimed to be harmful. Why would targeting matter for ads seen by nearly every viewer, as is the case for your examples? Your second link isn't even talking about bad ads or personalization. It's talking about bad content with good ads not wanting to be associated with the bad content.
- bryan0 5y ago
  Let me repeat what you said again because you seem to have forgotten: > I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. Emphasis mine. The videos and ads are hyper targeted to misinform people on some of the most important and dangerous topics of the day.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    Ah ok, yeah I was debating the ads stuff, but you're right that I did also claim to be ethically ok with video recommendations. I think the latter is less contentious so I wasn't directly defending it. That one is easier for me to defend actually. I've worked on video recommendation and misinformation integrity (tangentially) at Facebook. I promise as a disinterested ex employee that you are just factually wrong. Facebook and Google both spend 10s to 100s of millions per year specifically to reduce the spread of misinformation. It's a very difficult technical problem because of avoiding false positives (taking down acceptable content) and because there are state actors spending huge amounts of money trying to do the opposite. There's no conspiracy here. You'd be right to say that Facebook has not done a perfect job, and that they didn't magically predict state actor election interference before 2016. But you'd be factually wrong to say that Facebook intentionally targets people with misinformation. Any site as big as Facebook, Instagram, or Youtube would have the same problem.

meowface 5y ago

>They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. What are you defining as "use of the data", in this case? Viewing their content? If so, that seems like a skewed way of phrasing it. If I were a YouTuber, I would personally either be okay with or even actively encourage ad blocking/skipping. (Easy for one to say, I know, but, as light evidence, I have some popular open source projects and have run popular websites without ever displaying any sort of ads or sponsored content when I easily could have. And I've strongly considered the idea of trying to make YouTube videos regularly.) I think I have a slightly different take on the issue compared to most people who dislike ads. I don't actually care much about the personalization or the data collection, as long as there isn't a way for an employee to easily drill down into specific people and track their individual activity by their real identity (i.e. a human manually stalking individuals personally, like a few Google and Facebook and NSA employees have occasionally been caught doing; I understand only a tiny percentage of them would ever do this). I just inherently don't like advertisements and advertising. I don't want to see ads, anywhere, ever. I pay for YouTube Premium - I'd pay for Twitter Premium / etc., if I actually liked Twitter. If that didn't exist: mine cryptocurrency in my browser if you want (as long as consent is requested) and give some of that to them. Or use something like Brave's attention token thing. Or anything else. Don't shove advertisements and sponsored segments in my face. Or, at least, ask if I want to see the ads, first, and let me choose "no". I know it's difficult for content creators to make a living, and I know it's difficult to offer a service like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook for free. But I don't like this world of advertising. I want out. I hope there will be people like yourself who instead work towards building systems that let us slowly transition away from advertising models, like what Brave's trying to do.

nxpnsv 5y ago

I think it should be opt in. A simple way to reduce a products privacy intrusion is to not use the product. Of course then the content creators still doesn't get paid, but at least you didn't use their data...

mynameismon 5y ago

Truth be told, I have similar feelings about ads. Several times, I have benefitted from ads on Facebook and Google, rendering several times their investments. For example, there was this one time when I had come across an ad on Facebook for a competition that I had found interesting. I applied, got selected, and eventually won a fully sponsored trip to NYC (worth about $4000). Now, would I want my data to be leaked *outside* FB/Google datacenters out into the public? No. Would I want to be constantly interrupted while I am watching a video? No. But would I want ads that benefit me and help me? Yes, sign me up. Also, regarding tracking, I believe tracking should be entirely optional (by law). Tracking certainly helps understand user preferences, and I personally always leave them on, because I want to help developers improve my experience. However, I do understand people wanting to turn them off, particularly on suspicious sites.

DavideNL 5y ago

Curious, do you think Oligopoly is okay too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

minusf 5y ago

> And btw, you can opt out of ads personalization on https://adssettings.google.com/ https://adssettings.google.com/ ads are not unethical per se. what i find unethical is the on by default tracking apparatus/personalized ads following me around and trying to learn what i like/want. show me random ads like billboards first, and if i want tracking, i'll tell you.

csydas 5y ago

Few points: 1. To turn it on/off means they're still tracking it somehow regardless. I'm not logged into any google service on my machine right now, and yet disabling the features on the link above returned that it was turned off for this browser and device. 2. This was on by default 3. So it would seem that Google was tracking me even though I wasn't logged in as well as any other number of users; I wasn't using their services, yet I was generating data for Google without my consent at all. 4. I find your use of ethics here semantically deceptive; it's distracting the above actions of Google performing unauthorized collection of data on person(s) by discussing an action regarding the relationship of content creators and viewers. 5. Google's collection of data to personalize ads is unethical in that my data and my information, as well as the information of many others, without their explicit consent. In countries where GDPR is enforced, Google creates a full screen modal which does not allow you to advance without either blocking the element or agreeing to data collection, which is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of GDPR. 6. The discussion is not about whether ads are okay or not okay, it is about the system by which ads and data collected to sustain the ad system is generate is okay or not, which it is not for the above reasons and many more. I cannot agree with any of your points as I see them as dismissive of the core issues and a justification of shady business practices that seek to simply gobble up information on all users regardless of whether they use Google's services or not. These points you've raised do not address the behavior of Google nor the purposes of the application at all, and are only tangentially related to the comment on the ethics of modern advertising. The discussion about the content creators and the viewers is not Google's discussion -- Google is part of the system that hosts and pays the content creators, but the discussion about revenue streams for creators is one for the creators and their audience. Google trying to shoehorn themselves into such a discussion when alternate revenue streams exist that can be used. How creators want to handle that is their business. Arguably, Google has made this situation even worse for creators by: - Reducing ad revenue for creators year after year - Not providing contemporary features that other fast growing and dominant platforms have given their creators (see: Instagram, TikTok, and other contemporaries) - By treating more substantial revenue streams for content creators aggressive until only very recently (previously it used to actively cut-off patreon links for small time channels that weren't part of the Partner system) - By by providing the same level of tooling and control over works that other platforms do - By aggressively demonetizing content creators that have any DCMA claim raised against them regardless of the validity of the claim Google/Youtube and all of their partner items are aggressive towards consumers and abusive towards the content creators using its platforms. The actual good actors on these platforms suffer for minor clerical mistakes or because of aggressive automated systems that cannot be contested while bad actors continue to abuse the system and profit from it. Users and content creators may have benefited from Google/Youtube and still have a dependency on its ad revenue, but it comes with extreme risk to rely on it now and with very sketchy behavior in order to support the system, all while Google and bad actors profit. For the reasons above, I find your post extremely disingenuous, and your opinion on advertisements far too lackadaisical.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Fice 5y ago

> I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. Advertising does not simply make people aware about some goods and services, it often works by manipulating peoples desires and fears. And to manipulate effectively, ad companies need to collect as much information as possible about every person. Google collects and manipulates at scale when it becomes a threat to society and culture.

dredmorbius 5y ago

The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality ... to users. .... For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded [services] will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine" http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

ignoramous 5y ago

> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. YouTubers share a percentage of the revenue with Google because it has a strangle-hold on online streaming. Platforms building frontends are chipping away at YouTube's moat within means which net neutrality and interoperability make it possible. > I think that Google using data to personalize ads and recommend videos is ethically ok. If viewers want nothing to do with YouTube, it is in creator's best interest then to engage with businesses building alternatives. If this niche service becomes any popular, then perhaps, the creators would do well to listen to their viewers, and a new model around revenue can be developed.

kerkeslager 5y ago

The idea that blocking ads is unethical because it harms content creators would have a lot more weight if YouTube didn't pay content creators such a pittance. YouTube is a middle-man that has inserted itself between content creators and content consumers so they can collect rent, and they've happily fucked over content creators every single time it has served their bottom line to do so. Viewing YouTube ads supports YouTube more than it does content creators--you can make some argument that maybe the opaque monetization somehow benefits creators more than YouTube, but there can be no question that the power is firmly in YouTube's hands. It's bad for content creators, who have to constantly worry about frivolous copyright claims, demonetization, and the mysterious algorithm causing them to lose views and subscribers. And it's bad for consumers, who end up with a watered down and censored version of content, with the ubiquitious "like and subscribe!" and "this episode sponsored by" constantly being rammed down their throat even when using an adblocker. If you want to support content creators, support content creators, not YouTube. I make recurring donations to a few different YouTube artists and they get more money from me than they would if I didn't use an adblocker.

jsnell 5y ago
> Viewing YouTube ads supports YouTube more than it does content creators That's not correct. The YT ad revenue split is 55% to the creator, 45% to YouTube. If it's the case that creators are getting a pittance, it's only because YT is getting even less. > I make recurring donations to a few different YouTube artists and they get more money from me than they would if I didn't use an adblocker. And the creators whose YT content you watch, but don't donate to? Would they perhaps be making less money?