3 ms·

That's why it's a 3/4 truth. They don't offer "pay us to see John Doe's religious affiliation", instead they offer "show your ad to Catholics". It's more simila

That's why it's a 3/4 truth. They don't offer "pay us to see John Doe's religious affiliation", instead they offer "show your ad to Catholics". It's more similar to a Catholic TV station selling commercial slots. That said, it can be far more targeted and powerful than a TV commercial, e.g. "show your ad to 18 year old Catholics with post-secondary education in Flint, Michigan".

ziddoap 5y ago
Thanks for replying and not simply downvoting and moving on. I can see what you (or the parent) was getting at and somewhat agree that it's not a "full" truth, and there is some nuance at play. Although, with just a few of those variables (age/gender/poltiics/religion/geography) you can likely narrow down your target audience to a few tens of people, making those people identifiable. I recall a few years ago a report along these lines (identifying people through FB's extremely granular targeting) in either Ars or a similar publication. Somewhat analogous would be the IMDB de-anonymization paper. And in these cases, the line is a lot more blurred. All that said, I'm not sure if FB has backed off on the available granularity that allowed such narrow target markets. Not to mention, if FB can target the market they obviously know each person in the market -- even when not directly giving that information to marketers, I think it's still part of the conversation.
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  > you can likely narrow down your target audience to a few tens of people, making those people identifiable Perhaps, but that's a very different scenario that what most people think of when others say "FB profits from selling your info".
- yupper32 5y ago
  You say it's nuance, I say it's a completely different situation and people either are ignorant or are purposely lying to push a narrative. #1 If Facebook sold raw personal data to whoever came with a checkbook, I'd be pissed. Beyond pissed. The whole Cambridge Analytica thing was the closest they got, and it was really an issue with friends of mine giving away my personal information through FB. FB fixed this issue. #2 If Facebook sells access to me via ads based on my personal data, then whatever. I don't really care. I gave FB my personal data. As long as they keep it to themselves them it's fine. Using the term "selling your data" triggers #1 in the vast majority of the population, stirring people up.
- Permit 5y ago
  > I can see what you (or the parent) was getting at and somewhat agree that it's not a "full" truth, and there is some nuance at play. The nuance is important, consider the statements: 1. DSA Direct sells data it has collected on you to Facebook. 2. Facebook sells data it has collected on you to advertisers. These two statements appear to be the same but they are describing different things. The first statement describes the sale of data in a sense that a non-technical person would understand: Facebook gives DSA Direct money, and DSA Direct gives them data on individuals. The second statement is deliberately crafted to look like the first (so as the ignite the same emotions) but describes something completely different. DSA Direct cannot buy data from Facebook. I cannot buy data from Facebook. People will go to great lengths (eg. "If I target a single person with ads, I can probe their information gradually") to equate the two, but they are not the same.

ziddoap 5y ago

Thanks for replying and not simply downvoting and moving on. I can see what you (or the parent) was getting at and somewhat agree that it's not a "full" truth, and there is some nuance at play. Although, with just a few of those variables (age/gender/poltiics/religion/geography) you can likely narrow down your target audience to a few tens of people, making those people identifiable. I recall a few years ago a report along these lines (identifying people through FB's extremely granular targeting) in either Ars or a similar publication. Somewhat analogous would be the IMDB de-anonymization paper. And in these cases, the line is a lot more blurred. All that said, I'm not sure if FB has backed off on the available granularity that allowed such narrow target markets. Not to mention, if FB can target the market they obviously know each person in the market -- even when not directly giving that information to marketers, I think it's still part of the conversation.

jonny_eh 5y ago
> you can likely narrow down your target audience to a few tens of people, making those people identifiable Perhaps, but that's a very different scenario that what most people think of when others say "FB profits from selling your info".
yupper32 5y ago
You say it's nuance, I say it's a completely different situation and people either are ignorant or are purposely lying to push a narrative. #1 If Facebook sold raw personal data to whoever came with a checkbook, I'd be pissed. Beyond pissed. The whole Cambridge Analytica thing was the closest they got, and it was really an issue with friends of mine giving away my personal information through FB. FB fixed this issue. #2 If Facebook sells access to me via ads based on my personal data, then whatever. I don't really care. I gave FB my personal data. As long as they keep it to themselves them it's fine. Using the term "selling your data" triggers #1 in the vast majority of the population, stirring people up.
Permit 5y ago
> I can see what you (or the parent) was getting at and somewhat agree that it's not a "full" truth, and there is some nuance at play. The nuance is important, consider the statements: 1. DSA Direct sells data it has collected on you to Facebook. 2. Facebook sells data it has collected on you to advertisers. These two statements appear to be the same but they are describing different things. The first statement describes the sale of data in a sense that a non-technical person would understand: Facebook gives DSA Direct money, and DSA Direct gives them data on individuals. The second statement is deliberately crafted to look like the first (so as the ignite the same emotions) but describes something completely different. DSA Direct cannot buy data from Facebook. I cannot buy data from Facebook. People will go to great lengths (eg. "If I target a single person with ads, I can probe their information gradually") to equate the two, but they are not the same.