3 ms·
You’re looking at positive examples. The negative examples have serious potential to create harm. E.g.; 1) a teenager exploring/researching their own sexuality
by avs733 5y ago
You’re looking at positive examples. The negative examples have serious potential to create harm. E.g.;
1) a teenager exploring/researching their own sexuality on the family computer causes ads to be served to very religious mom and dad for queer friendly products or a pride flag
2) ads targeting someone with covid that send them to a scam testing site (that charges both the patient and the government) or pushing ineffective or dangerous treatments like colloidal silver.
It’s not that these are the only categories that can be abused but these are some most rife for abuse
- notahacker 5y agoIt must be said that the problem with (2) is the site pushing the claims being allowed to advertise/operate at all. Its only marginally less harmful if it can still profit from less directly targeted advertising. I also think there's an important distinction between data that can be used on a platform's own website and information that follows you around the Internet (which this legislation doesn't appear to draw). In practical terms, this is the distinction between ads for services a gay teenager might actually use on a login-based social profile the teenager has voluntarily publicly displayed their sexual orientation on (and bombarding them with slightly fewer invitations to be heterosexual!) and rainbow ads following their mum round Internet.
- avs733 5y agoIn the abstract I totally agree But if you limit their targeting the entire method becomes much much less effective and hurts the economic incentive. Right now that seems the best they can do. The policies have to be realistic. The issue is information following you…but good luck solving that