9 ms·

A Future Without Manipulation

90 points by karlzt 5y ago

gentleman11 5y ago
It proposes contextual ads, free from targeting, as the solution so we can have our future that’s free from manipulation. In the 90s, ads weren’t targeted and they were still causing eating disorders. There was lively discussion about the effects this was having in society in many ways. It’s just so much worse now so the discussion has moved on, but it’s not like mass scale, industrialized, trillion dollar manipulation systems (ads) are a good thing. We don’t even talk about consumerism any more because the ads created a culture of consumers who don’t even question it any more
- thr0wawayf00 5y ago
  Agreed, I've seen so much of this on YouTube lately. I've become so disillusioned with product review videos lately because prominent channels clearly have an interest in maintaining good relationships with vendors in order to keep getting pre-release versions of products to review, and there's zero transparency around this entire system. Do product reviewers always have to send the demo product back once the video is made, or can the vendor gift it to them after the fact (especially if the video is positive, wink wink)? Up-and-coming channels often shout out the companies they're reviewing directly (i.e. "Purple didn't sponsor this mattress review but feel free to send me stuff in the future!"). How can you believe that someone is providing an honest, balanced review when they say stuff like that? I learned early in my career working at an advertising startup that advertising's biggest goal is to no longer be noticed or separated from the rest of the content pool, to be completely indiscernible, unrecognizable from objective content.. Getting rid of tracking would solve some major privacy problems, but YouTube is becoming one giant ad fest created by people who are pretending that they aren't making ads, and I don't see tracking removal solving that problem.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gentleman11 5y ago
    Here’s one reviewer who quit because of the corruption https://youtu.be/VH1WEYF8rlA https://youtu.be/VH1WEYF8rlA
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Any ad is automatically manipulation, trying to get you to buy things.
petermcneeley 5y ago
We wanted a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Are we settling for "a future without manipulation" instead?
- donw 5y ago
  ... and then we discovered that the ancients had already explored and named this world: "Hell".
  - stirfish 5y ago
    The worst part is having to buy a new Hell every year because the old ones are unsupported.
    - donw 5y ago
      Fortunately, you can now sign up for an annual iHell subscription and get a fresh new Hell every year.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    the Soviet Union and the current US are not the only two possible futures. A better future has been implemented previously and other examples are visible in e.g. the Nordic model.
    - donw 5y ago
      The Nordic model requires strong borders and high cultural cohesion: "we're all in this together" doesn't function without either "we" or "together". Neither of those is remotely true in the US of 2021.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        true - a good portion of your population is, for all intents and purposes, insane at the moment. I think you'd have to end the two-party system before anything better could happen because that's a HUGE driver of the conflict.
friedman23 5y ago
Funnily enough this entire website feels manipulative.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Yeah leading with a baseless "X IS HARMING YOU" is one of the more manipulative techniques
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    ... Baseless? Really? Did you not hear about the whole Cambridge Analytica thing? Even if you think they overblew their claims, there are so many more examples to choose from. All you have to do is look. People have written books on the harm done; or YouTube videos, if you prefer.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      People write books on all sorts of nonsense, with attention-grabbing titles if they are savvy.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        Sorry, your point is that since there are books full of nonsense out there, the books about this issue may well be nonsense too? And so you're not even going to look at them. But you'll maintain these people are spending billions on our data for "harmless" reasons. But you won't look at any evidence of harm. Because nonsense exists. ... Seems like an odd take.
        pphysch 5y ago
        You've had like 10 sentences to provide examples of how superficially tracking my web activity is LITERALLY HARMING me, and instead you vaguely gesture at "books" and "videos" and resort to logical fallacies... Thinking emoji.
urthor 5y ago
The core issue with data privacy is the enforcement mechanism. Yes, there are huge demands for limits on the business world's use of private data. But at the end of the day, any company that has your name/address/credit card number because you bought something from them is going to know. A lot. It's unlikely that any data inside said company isn't going to be de facto visible to them for whatever purposes that company so desires. I find the effort to try to stop the inflow of data to these second parties Sisyphean. It's also ironic that it directly contrasts to the new widespread regime permeating all of financial services, "know your customer." What would be far more effective, and helpful for ensuring user privacy however, are restrictions on transferring that data between second parties, and third parties. Legally binding "no transferring user/customer data to third parties, ever," restrictions would so easy. Simple, enforceable (because the very fact it ends up in a third party creates a paper trail) and a huge improvement. Take HIPAA and apply it to all data. Most of the problems in this space don't come from the company who originally collected the data misbehaving. They come from that data being passed through third parties like a game of pass the parcel. Re recommendation algorithms, the rules should be very simple. All publicly deployed recommendation algorithms should be public knowledge. Recommendation algorithms hold far too much power and influence in our society to remain as secretive corporate IP.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mayregretit 5y ago
  "Any other disclosures of Personal Health Information require the covered entity to obtain written authorization from the individual for the disclosure" -HIPAA Wouldn't companies just update their terms of service to say "you agree to let us buy and sell your data?" Not allowing that would go up against freedom of contract.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    What even is "freedom of contract"? Do you need to allow and legally enforce the ability of website owners to bury "by browsing this website you forfeit your eternal soul and also your firstborn" in a ToS? It doesn't seem like the kind of core human right that you need to allow a free society. In my state there's limited freedom of contract in, for example, payday loans: https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-81903_20942-171016--,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-81903_20942-171016-... Companies do not have the freedom to offer a $100 payday loan with a service fee of $16. The state says that 400% APR is usurious; by law it's restricted to $15. There's no doubt that without this law, unscrupulous and predatory companies would try to craft a contract which demanded more than that, and we've decided that our society is better off without that unlimited greed.
dsizzle 5y ago
All ads are a form of manipulation. I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Untargeted ads on the other hand would need to more manipulative to be equally effective. It seems the problem this site is really taking issue with is privacy.
- rhizome 5y ago
  >I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Except targeting works the same as recommendations, which is "not," so they might as well be untargeted banners just like in the 90s anyway.
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Ha, I feel like people assign higher competency to agents they fear (in an extreme case “the CIA is reading my mind”).
- stirfish 5y ago
  > I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Say a person has a long, rocky history with [gambling]. Showing them more ads for [casinos] than the average population is manipulative, no matter how catchy the contents of the ads are. Replace [gambling] with binge eating, depression, infertility, impulse shopping, violent extremism, or whatever else you'd like. A lot of things will fit.
  - cm2012 5y ago
    I'm an ads person. Ads for casinos should be banned. But ads for therapy for gambling addicts sound fine. Ads are just a tool. If you don't like a certain industry being promoted, then crack down on that industry and its ads, not everyone.
    - 5y ago
TeeMassive 5y ago
We need more of those websites showing the normies that "having nothing to hide" is essentially not true unless you're a toddler. Ever negotiated a salary, an insurance, a business contract? In life we get what we negotiate, not what we deserve and when it comes to negotiations information is power.
foxhop 5y ago
I made my tool free this year in solidarity: https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can/ https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can/
- coolgeek 5y ago
  This URL 404s
  - foxhop 5y ago
    https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can.html https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can....
harel 5y ago
To be honest, if I'm going to see ads anyway, I rather them at least try to be relevant and not random. However, the current situation is out of balance. If my browser is loading an insane amount of tracking networks and my memory/cpu keeps climbing up because of that, and the page requires an epilepsy warning - that is wrong. There has to be a reality where ads support free services and content and not the other way around.
- xjay 5y ago
  In an alternate universe, ads are only allowed on a global ad portal run by a neutral intermediate per political region. Consumers learn about relevant products and services based on stated interests. Advertisers pay to replicate a list of their products, offers, and services on it.
  - harel 5y ago
    That's also an imbalance, assuming we want to keep "free" on the table. Now ads are centralised, and one has to elect to go to a special portal to see ads. This won't pay for all the stuff we get for "free" but is most definitely not "free". If ads were reasonable and based on stated interests we might not even be having this conversation. To me it feels like the advertising platforms are shooting themselves in the foot. There will be a tipping point where even the "regular internet users" will have enough of this crap.
joshxyz 5y ago
Man this page is laggy as fuck.
southerntofu 5y ago
I'd like a future without manipulation. That is, a future in which we can have honest, horizontal discussions about conflicting interests and not let plutocracy and kyriarchy rule society. However, i find it funny that this page with presumably basic information requires me to fill a CAPTCHA and enable cookies. Training the AI minions of our Silicon Valley overlords and tracking cookies both sound like pathways to a future with manipulation :-)
- qnsi 5y ago
  I didn't have to do either of those things. Maybe they discriminate based on location?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    I use a Tor Browser, so that's probably why. Also possible: i'm not sure which CAPTCHA service they use, but if it's a 3rd party, it's possible they have already uniquely-identified you on another website, and therefore would let you through transparently.
the_optimist 5y ago
Before this all began, we declared independence [0]. This approach is merely pleading for freedom. Somehow the Snowcrash faction seem to be winning over the Cypherpunk visionaries. The former envisioned a largely dystopian technological future where in-the-know people enjoy benefits and avoid downsides, whereas the latter attempted to enable unfettered growth. Where is the modern herald call for throwing off tech designed to subvert the individual? [0] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
bluefox 5y ago
I clicked "Yes" and it does nothing. Maybe because I have JavaScript disabled.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  Oh noes! Disabling JavaScript made the button do nothing?! Who could have predicted it?
  - nicce 5y ago
    <button> with <a> tag disagrees!
  - bluefox 5y ago
    I could've predicted that. Maybe because I am living in the future (without manipulation).
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Today I saw an article about Roma, claiming genetic data from some of them was collected against their consent (years ago when asking for consent was not formalized like today), and should be deleted. It is used for scientific studies. I think that is madness - if the privacy craze starts to harm science, it should be reconsidered.
dnissley 5y ago
Website: Do you surf the web? Choose: "Yes" or "No" Me: Yes Website: Every time you visit a website or use social media apps, you are being tracked and monitored. There is often no warning that this is happening. Choose: "Oh no! Tell me more!" or "I'm fine with it..." Me: I'm fine with it... Website: Are you sure you do not want to know what happens when you use social media, accept cookies or like a post? Choose: "Ok. Tell me more!" Me: Ah, yes, I don't know why I expected anything other than eurocrats using UI dark patterns to try and force me to accept their propagandistic messaging. Totally on brand. Closes tab
ChrisArchitect 5y ago
This is from October. Has it had any impact since then?

90 points by karlzt 5y ago

It proposes contextual ads, free from targeting, as the solution so we can have our future that’s free from manipulation. In the 90s, ads weren’t targeted and they were still causing eating disorders. There was lively discussion about the effects this was having in society in many ways. It’s just so much worse now so the discussion has moved on, but it’s not like mass scale, industrialized, trillion dollar manipulation systems (ads) are a good thing. We don’t even talk about consumerism any more because the ads created a culture of consumers who don’t even question it any more

thr0wawayf00 5y ago
Agreed, I've seen so much of this on YouTube lately. I've become so disillusioned with product review videos lately because prominent channels clearly have an interest in maintaining good relationships with vendors in order to keep getting pre-release versions of products to review, and there's zero transparency around this entire system. Do product reviewers always have to send the demo product back once the video is made, or can the vendor gift it to them after the fact (especially if the video is positive, wink wink)? Up-and-coming channels often shout out the companies they're reviewing directly (i.e. "Purple didn't sponsor this mattress review but feel free to send me stuff in the future!"). How can you believe that someone is providing an honest, balanced review when they say stuff like that? I learned early in my career working at an advertising startup that advertising's biggest goal is to no longer be noticed or separated from the rest of the content pool, to be completely indiscernible, unrecognizable from objective content.. Getting rid of tracking would solve some major privacy problems, but YouTube is becoming one giant ad fest created by people who are pretending that they aren't making ads, and I don't see tracking removal solving that problem.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Here’s one reviewer who quit because of the corruption https://youtu.be/VH1WEYF8rlA https://youtu.be/VH1WEYF8rlA
tomjen3 5y ago
Any ad is automatically manipulation, trying to get you to buy things.

petermcneeley 5y ago

We wanted a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Are we settling for "a future without manipulation" instead?

donw 5y ago
... and then we discovered that the ancients had already explored and named this world: "Hell".
- stirfish 5y ago
  The worst part is having to buy a new Hell every year because the old ones are unsupported.
  - donw 5y ago
    Fortunately, you can now sign up for an annual iHell subscription and get a fresh new Hell every year.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  the Soviet Union and the current US are not the only two possible futures. A better future has been implemented previously and other examples are visible in e.g. the Nordic model.
  - donw 5y ago
    The Nordic model requires strong borders and high cultural cohesion: "we're all in this together" doesn't function without either "we" or "together". Neither of those is remotely true in the US of 2021.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      true - a good portion of your population is, for all intents and purposes, insane at the moment. I think you'd have to end the two-party system before anything better could happen because that's a HUGE driver of the conflict.

friedman23 5y ago

Funnily enough this entire website feels manipulative.

pphysch 5y ago
Yeah leading with a baseless "X IS HARMING YOU" is one of the more manipulative techniques
- mandmandam 5y ago
  ... Baseless? Really? Did you not hear about the whole Cambridge Analytica thing? Even if you think they overblew their claims, there are so many more examples to choose from. All you have to do is look. People have written books on the harm done; or YouTube videos, if you prefer.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    People write books on all sorts of nonsense, with attention-grabbing titles if they are savvy.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      Sorry, your point is that since there are books full of nonsense out there, the books about this issue may well be nonsense too? And so you're not even going to look at them. But you'll maintain these people are spending billions on our data for "harmless" reasons. But you won't look at any evidence of harm. Because nonsense exists. ... Seems like an odd take.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        You've had like 10 sentences to provide examples of how superficially tracking my web activity is LITERALLY HARMING me, and instead you vaguely gesture at "books" and "videos" and resort to logical fallacies... Thinking emoji.

urthor 5y ago

The core issue with data privacy is the enforcement mechanism. Yes, there are huge demands for limits on the business world's use of private data. But at the end of the day, any company that has your name/address/credit card number because you bought something from them is going to know. A lot. It's unlikely that any data inside said company isn't going to be de facto visible to them for whatever purposes that company so desires. I find the effort to try to stop the inflow of data to these second parties Sisyphean. It's also ironic that it directly contrasts to the new widespread regime permeating all of financial services, "know your customer." What would be far more effective, and helpful for ensuring user privacy however, are restrictions on transferring that data between second parties, and third parties. Legally binding "no transferring user/customer data to third parties, ever," restrictions would so easy. Simple, enforceable (because the very fact it ends up in a third party creates a paper trail) and a huge improvement. Take HIPAA and apply it to all data. Most of the problems in this space don't come from the company who originally collected the data misbehaving. They come from that data being passed through third parties like a game of pass the parcel. Re recommendation algorithms, the rules should be very simple. All publicly deployed recommendation algorithms should be public knowledge. Recommendation algorithms hold far too much power and influence in our society to remain as secretive corporate IP.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mayregretit 5y ago
"Any other disclosures of Personal Health Information require the covered entity to obtain written authorization from the individual for the disclosure" -HIPAA Wouldn't companies just update their terms of service to say "you agree to let us buy and sell your data?" Not allowing that would go up against freedom of contract.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  What even is "freedom of contract"? Do you need to allow and legally enforce the ability of website owners to bury "by browsing this website you forfeit your eternal soul and also your firstborn" in a ToS? It doesn't seem like the kind of core human right that you need to allow a free society. In my state there's limited freedom of contract in, for example, payday loans: https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-81903_20942-171016--,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-81903_20942-171016-... Companies do not have the freedom to offer a $100 payday loan with a service fee of $16. The state says that 400% APR is usurious; by law it's restricted to $15. There's no doubt that without this law, unscrupulous and predatory companies would try to craft a contract which demanded more than that, and we've decided that our society is better off without that unlimited greed.

dsizzle 5y ago

All ads are a form of manipulation. I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Untargeted ads on the other hand would need to more manipulative to be equally effective. It seems the problem this site is really taking issue with is privacy.

rhizome 5y ago
>I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Except targeting works the same as recommendations, which is "not," so they might as well be untargeted banners just like in the 90s anyway.
- dsizzle 5y ago
  Ha, I feel like people assign higher competency to agents they fear (in an extreme case “the CIA is reading my mind”).
stirfish 5y ago
> I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Say a person has a long, rocky history with [gambling]. Showing them more ads for [casinos] than the average population is manipulative, no matter how catchy the contents of the ads are. Replace [gambling] with binge eating, depression, infertility, impulse shopping, violent extremism, or whatever else you'd like. A lot of things will fit.
- cm2012 5y ago
  I'm an ads person. Ads for casinos should be banned. But ads for therapy for gambling addicts sound fine. Ads are just a tool. If you don't like a certain industry being promoted, then crack down on that industry and its ads, not everyone.
  - 5y ago

TeeMassive 5y ago

We need more of those websites showing the normies that "having nothing to hide" is essentially not true unless you're a toddler. Ever negotiated a salary, an insurance, a business contract? In life we get what we negotiate, not what we deserve and when it comes to negotiations information is power.

foxhop 5y ago

I made my tool free this year in solidarity: https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can/ https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can/

coolgeek 5y ago
This URL 404s
- foxhop 5y ago
  https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can.html https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can....

harel 5y ago

To be honest, if I'm going to see ads anyway, I rather them at least try to be relevant and not random. However, the current situation is out of balance. If my browser is loading an insane amount of tracking networks and my memory/cpu keeps climbing up because of that, and the page requires an epilepsy warning - that is wrong. There has to be a reality where ads support free services and content and not the other way around.

xjay 5y ago
In an alternate universe, ads are only allowed on a global ad portal run by a neutral intermediate per political region. Consumers learn about relevant products and services based on stated interests. Advertisers pay to replicate a list of their products, offers, and services on it.
- harel 5y ago
  That's also an imbalance, assuming we want to keep "free" on the table. Now ads are centralised, and one has to elect to go to a special portal to see ads. This won't pay for all the stuff we get for "free" but is most definitely not "free". If ads were reasonable and based on stated interests we might not even be having this conversation. To me it feels like the advertising platforms are shooting themselves in the foot. There will be a tipping point where even the "regular internet users" will have enough of this crap.

joshxyz 5y ago

Man this page is laggy as fuck.

southerntofu 5y ago

I'd like a future without manipulation. That is, a future in which we can have honest, horizontal discussions about conflicting interests and not let plutocracy and kyriarchy rule society. However, i find it funny that this page with presumably basic information requires me to fill a CAPTCHA and enable cookies. Training the AI minions of our Silicon Valley overlords and tracking cookies both sound like pathways to a future with manipulation :-)

qnsi 5y ago
I didn't have to do either of those things. Maybe they discriminate based on location?
- southerntofu 5y ago
  I use a Tor Browser, so that's probably why. Also possible: i'm not sure which CAPTCHA service they use, but if it's a 3rd party, it's possible they have already uniquely-identified you on another website, and therefore would let you through transparently.

the_optimist 5y ago

Before this all began, we declared independence [0]. This approach is merely pleading for freedom. Somehow the Snowcrash faction seem to be winning over the Cypherpunk visionaries. The former envisioned a largely dystopian technological future where in-the-know people enjoy benefits and avoid downsides, whereas the latter attempted to enable unfettered growth. Where is the modern herald call for throwing off tech designed to subvert the individual? [0] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

bluefox 5y ago

I clicked "Yes" and it does nothing. Maybe because I have JavaScript disabled.

JasonFruit 5y ago
Oh noes! Disabling JavaScript made the button do nothing?! Who could have predicted it?
- nicce 5y ago
  <button> with <a> tag disagrees!
- bluefox 5y ago
  I could've predicted that. Maybe because I am living in the future (without manipulation).

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

Today I saw an article about Roma, claiming genetic data from some of them was collected against their consent (years ago when asking for consent was not formalized like today), and should be deleted. It is used for scientific studies. I think that is madness - if the privacy craze starts to harm science, it should be reconsidered.

dnissley 5y ago

Website: Do you surf the web? Choose: "Yes" or "No" Me: Yes Website: Every time you visit a website or use social media apps, you are being tracked and monitored. There is often no warning that this is happening. Choose: "Oh no! Tell me more!" or "I'm fine with it..." Me: I'm fine with it... Website: Are you sure you do not want to know what happens when you use social media, accept cookies or like a post? Choose: "Ok. Tell me more!" Me: Ah, yes, I don't know why I expected anything other than eurocrats using UI dark patterns to try and force me to accept their propagandistic messaging. Totally on brand. Closes tab

ChrisArchitect 5y ago

This is from October. Has it had any impact since then?