4 ms·

Sorry but I feel like this is a bit of a straw-man. Micro-targeting != information exposure Let’s be clear what we are talking about here. We are talking abo

Sorry but I feel like this is a bit of a straw-man. Micro-targeting != information exposure Let’s be clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about persistent ubiquitous surveillance apparatus paired with the ability to push media to people’s devices; and using to conduct population scale behavioral experiments / modification. We are not talking about banning books, websites, music, advertisements, etc. Put another way… They want to regulate your ability to push content to others, not their ability to request content from you. The big difference between these situations is the consent and intent of the person receiving the information. I do not feel that anyone is a “right” to bombard me with information I did not ask for.

Terry_Roll 5y ago
> Micro-targeting != information exposure Yes it is, lets say you have been exposed to some data which creates a knee jerk reaction, consciously and subconsciously you have now become manipulated. You may even choose to share that data you have been exposed to. You dont know if its real or not because it could be a photoshopped image, some data that influences some of your concerns, like a health concern. The point is, what ever that information is, whatever that data is because data and information are the same thing, this is now manipulating you whether you realise it or not. Search engines "bombard" you with information you didnt want by presenting some links, you click one and find its not the website or data/information you are expecting or looking for, however the citation in the SE results was enough to tease you into clicking that link where you found it was not what you were looking for. You then go back to the results and click another link. The last link you click also helps train the Search Engine, pushing the last link you clicke don up the list of results next time someone else enters the same search term or one close to it. That is basically how to fine tune a Search Engine results page. I think people also dont realise or can quantify the effects of their words and actions, but with people suiciding themselves because of social media bullying as one example, and parents in particular not really paying any attention to what their kids do online, I can see their justification to want to regulate it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-harms-children-damaging-democracy-claims-whistleblower https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-... Businesses primary Maslow Hierarchy of Needs is money, money is to business what food and shelter is to a human. after that they can get lawyers, accountants and other specialists in and out source anything controversial or questionably legal to keep at a safe distance which is something the law in its current implementation fails to address. If they cant regulate this, then maybe the law needs to be changed so that shareholders and board are held accountable, ie tackling the problem from the other end. Another problem with law is an institution like a business rarely has its culture held accountable, only individuals can be held to account with law, a culture never can but on a countrywide basis, wars usually settle those disputes, but there is nothing to tackle flawed corporate culture, except perhaps some bad press, but that rarely works as we see with Facebook and more and more "experts" coming out against them like we see in the news article above.
- pfisherman 5y ago
  > Search engines "bombard" you with information you didnt want Not for long. If a search engine returns bunk results I use an alternative. If I type a query into a search engine and press enter I am requesting information. If I type a url into a search bar, I am requesting information. In both of these cases there is clear intent on my part to retrieve the content and consent to receive it. I am the agent that initiates the transaction. If the search engine or webpage sends me something I do not like then I can opt out and go somewhere else. They will not continue to send me content. There is a big difference between this and pushing content onto someone’s device.
didericis 5y ago
> We are not talking about banning books, websites, music, advertisements Regulating micro targeting implies restricting what people can advertise to specific people. If you restrict people’s ability to advertise knowledge of something’s existence you’re effectively banning it without making it illegal to access. Your notion of “bombardment” is legitimate, but I think should apply after initial contact. If a user doesn’t want certain advertisers to send them certain information, users should be able to decide what they do and don’t want to mute, but they can’t know what they do and don’t want until someone reaches out. The primary point of advertising is to introduce a user to something they might want to either have or know about but were not previously aware of. At least that’s the point I find most legitimate. That means giving users information they didn’t specifically ask for. The type of behavior modification that’s more contentious is not about presenting a user with something they didn’t know about, it’s usually about reinforcing something they already wanted. If you ban information you think users don’t want or that shouldn’t be advertised to them, you’re reducing the discovery aspect of advertising. A user can’t know if they want to have certain ads or information presented until they have it presented at least once. Preventing initial contact and trying to get a product or idea to someone you think would be receptive but isn’f aware of seems to me like it’s not preventing either bombardment or behavioral modification, and would probably lead to people being even more siloed than they already are. If the DoD has the power to steer how people are siloed, that seems even worse. I agree that the behavioral modification capabilities and scale of surveillance is extremely worrisome and there should be things done to mitigate it, I just don’t see how a lot of what I’m hearing in documents like this would make it any better. The impulse seems to create something top down which would harm discovery. I wouldn’t have a problem with regulations that force companies to provide more access to the knobs of what gets them or what advertising networks they want to be a part of, for example. But I don’t see a lot of evidence that’s the direction things are going.

Terry_Roll 5y ago

> Micro-targeting != information exposure Yes it is, lets say you have been exposed to some data which creates a knee jerk reaction, consciously and subconsciously you have now become manipulated. You may even choose to share that data you have been exposed to. You dont know if its real or not because it could be a photoshopped image, some data that influences some of your concerns, like a health concern. The point is, what ever that information is, whatever that data is because data and information are the same thing, this is now manipulating you whether you realise it or not. Search engines "bombard" you with information you didnt want by presenting some links, you click one and find its not the website or data/information you are expecting or looking for, however the citation in the SE results was enough to tease you into clicking that link where you found it was not what you were looking for. You then go back to the results and click another link. The last link you click also helps train the Search Engine, pushing the last link you clicke don up the list of results next time someone else enters the same search term or one close to it. That is basically how to fine tune a Search Engine results page. I think people also dont realise or can quantify the effects of their words and actions, but with people suiciding themselves because of social media bullying as one example, and parents in particular not really paying any attention to what their kids do online, I can see their justification to want to regulate it. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-harms-children-damaging-democracy-claims-whistleblower https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/05/facebook-... Businesses primary Maslow Hierarchy of Needs is money, money is to business what food and shelter is to a human. after that they can get lawyers, accountants and other specialists in and out source anything controversial or questionably legal to keep at a safe distance which is something the law in its current implementation fails to address. If they cant regulate this, then maybe the law needs to be changed so that shareholders and board are held accountable, ie tackling the problem from the other end. Another problem with law is an institution like a business rarely has its culture held accountable, only individuals can be held to account with law, a culture never can but on a countrywide basis, wars usually settle those disputes, but there is nothing to tackle flawed corporate culture, except perhaps some bad press, but that rarely works as we see with Facebook and more and more "experts" coming out against them like we see in the news article above.

pfisherman 5y ago
> Search engines "bombard" you with information you didnt want Not for long. If a search engine returns bunk results I use an alternative. If I type a query into a search engine and press enter I am requesting information. If I type a url into a search bar, I am requesting information. In both of these cases there is clear intent on my part to retrieve the content and consent to receive it. I am the agent that initiates the transaction. If the search engine or webpage sends me something I do not like then I can opt out and go somewhere else. They will not continue to send me content. There is a big difference between this and pushing content onto someone’s device.

didericis 5y ago

> We are not talking about banning books, websites, music, advertisements Regulating micro targeting implies restricting what people can advertise to specific people. If you restrict people’s ability to advertise knowledge of something’s existence you’re effectively banning it without making it illegal to access. Your notion of “bombardment” is legitimate, but I think should apply after initial contact. If a user doesn’t want certain advertisers to send them certain information, users should be able to decide what they do and don’t want to mute, but they can’t know what they do and don’t want until someone reaches out. The primary point of advertising is to introduce a user to something they might want to either have or know about but were not previously aware of. At least that’s the point I find most legitimate. That means giving users information they didn’t specifically ask for. The type of behavior modification that’s more contentious is not about presenting a user with something they didn’t know about, it’s usually about reinforcing something they already wanted. If you ban information you think users don’t want or that shouldn’t be advertised to them, you’re reducing the discovery aspect of advertising. A user can’t know if they want to have certain ads or information presented until they have it presented at least once. Preventing initial contact and trying to get a product or idea to someone you think would be receptive but isn’f aware of seems to me like it’s not preventing either bombardment or behavioral modification, and would probably lead to people being even more siloed than they already are. If the DoD has the power to steer how people are siloed, that seems even worse. I agree that the behavioral modification capabilities and scale of surveillance is extremely worrisome and there should be things done to mitigate it, I just don’t see how a lot of what I’m hearing in documents like this would make it any better. The impulse seems to create something top down which would harm discovery. I wouldn’t have a problem with regulations that force companies to provide more access to the knobs of what gets them or what advertising networks they want to be a part of, for example. But I don’t see a lot of evidence that’s the direction things are going.