5 ms·

A lot of my peers would say this is just one line of code away from a society in which our every single action or movement is influenced by hyper personalized a

A lot of my peers would say this is just one line of code away from a society in which our every single action or movement is influenced by hyper personalized advertisements. They fear losing control of their own lives. I say bring it on. I look forward to the day when an algorithm tells me my taste buds prefer extra spicy beef panda express, order now and have it air delivered to you in ten minutes

luu 15y ago
Yes! I would love it if advertisers could figure out my preferences and run ads for products that I didn't even know I wanted. Instead, because they don't have enough information, I get ads for things I couldn't care less about.
viscanti 15y ago
Relevant advertising is relevant. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time (yours and the advertisers). Steps should be taken to safeguard privacy (you should never get a letter blackmailing you because of what you've done in the past), but if the focus is on making sure you only get relevant advertising and everything else is filtered before it gets to you, I consider that a win.
- elehack 15y ago
  One major concern that remains relevant is the prospect of abuse. You can't steal, misappropriate, or abuse what doesn't exist in the first place. You can't subpoena or execute a warrant to retrieve data that was never stored. Privacy laws and rules provide some projection, but that only goes as far as they are enforced. Nonexistence of data cannot be subverted and is a much more robust protection against the data falling into the wrong hands. The issue isn't necessarily who has the data now. It's who might get it later.
  - viscanti 15y ago
    I agree. I think safeguards need to be put in place. I think it's OK for a computer algorithm to use historical information to provide relevant ads and filter out all the rest. Ideally, no one else would have any access to that data. It's more work, but I think it's worth the effort (there's way too much junk advertising out there).
  - kcurtin 15y ago
    I think the concern over data coming back to bite you in a legal setting is more valid than others, but is still only relevant in very specific cases. Who else falls into the category of the "wrong hands" and what harm could they really do with a list of my interests, preferences and other information I make available on whatever social networking site I am on?
    - elehack 15y ago
      Short version: lulzsec and blackmail/public embarrassment. Intruders count as the "wrong hands". A future buyer/board/CEO with fewer ethical scruples than the current managers of a given data set may count as the wrong hands, or allow it to fall into other wrong hands.
    - mooki 15y ago
      Say you're into poker and a bank buys your data. You're now tagged as a gambler and considered a liability, so you will have a harder time getting a loan. A future employer could buy it and decide they don't like some certain thing about you. Etc. Maybe they will never sell your data, but maybe they will. There's unlimited potential for abuse from the corporate sector. What the FBI knows about me doesn't worry me much.
mbesto 15y ago
There is an argument (from advertisers, actually had a AE for a digital media company tell me this) that basically says "If we can't track you and your interests then you won't find out about new products and services that serve your personality and interests" On one hand, I think "I can find my own products thank you" while on the other I understand the crowded space and targeting advertising does reduce the signal to noise ratio. (this is debatable I guess?)
joezydeco 15y ago
I'm curious what "losing control" means here. Do you mean they don't feel they have the willpower to resist these hyper-personalized ads? Or do they feel the ads will become so obnoxious and attention-getting (because of the personal nature) that it will interfere with their daily thought patterns?
- gghootch 15y ago
  "they don't feel they have the willpower to resist these hyper-personalized ads" Although it's not necessarily a discussion of their own willpower but rather whether the masses will lose portions of the power to think for themselves. Not always the same or hyperspecific portions, but we're slowly giving away more and more of our decisions to advertisements. /Disclaimer: not sure whether I paraphrased this correctly./
  - joezydeco 15y ago
    I don't believe ads are the only culprit. Daily, and increasingly, we give away our decision making to a myriad of sources. Blogs. Fox News. @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher). Apple product keynotes. Hopefully we can also use the same technology to liberate ourselves from the magnetic attraction of ads and the media and do something positive. I'd look to recent events (Arab Spring, #OWS) as a possible glimmer of hope there.
    - william42 15y ago
      At least we can give away our decision making to a myriad of sources, instead of picking between three television channels and the town crier.
slowpoke 15y ago
> I look forward to the day when an algorithm tells me my taste buds prefer extra spicy beef panda express, order now and have it air delivered to you in ten minutes. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's degenerate, plain and simply. If the day arrives when people give up thinking for themselves, we've truly arrived at an Orwellian society, and your friends are damn right - we're not very far away from this.

luu 15y ago

Yes! I would love it if advertisers could figure out my preferences and run ads for products that I didn't even know I wanted. Instead, because they don't have enough information, I get ads for things I couldn't care less about.

viscanti 15y ago

Relevant advertising is relevant. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time (yours and the advertisers). Steps should be taken to safeguard privacy (you should never get a letter blackmailing you because of what you've done in the past), but if the focus is on making sure you only get relevant advertising and everything else is filtered before it gets to you, I consider that a win.

elehack 15y ago
One major concern that remains relevant is the prospect of abuse. You can't steal, misappropriate, or abuse what doesn't exist in the first place. You can't subpoena or execute a warrant to retrieve data that was never stored. Privacy laws and rules provide some projection, but that only goes as far as they are enforced. Nonexistence of data cannot be subverted and is a much more robust protection against the data falling into the wrong hands. The issue isn't necessarily who has the data now. It's who might get it later.
- viscanti 15y ago
  I agree. I think safeguards need to be put in place. I think it's OK for a computer algorithm to use historical information to provide relevant ads and filter out all the rest. Ideally, no one else would have any access to that data. It's more work, but I think it's worth the effort (there's way too much junk advertising out there).
- kcurtin 15y ago
  I think the concern over data coming back to bite you in a legal setting is more valid than others, but is still only relevant in very specific cases. Who else falls into the category of the "wrong hands" and what harm could they really do with a list of my interests, preferences and other information I make available on whatever social networking site I am on?
  - elehack 15y ago
    Short version: lulzsec and blackmail/public embarrassment. Intruders count as the "wrong hands". A future buyer/board/CEO with fewer ethical scruples than the current managers of a given data set may count as the wrong hands, or allow it to fall into other wrong hands.
  - mooki 15y ago
    Say you're into poker and a bank buys your data. You're now tagged as a gambler and considered a liability, so you will have a harder time getting a loan. A future employer could buy it and decide they don't like some certain thing about you. Etc. Maybe they will never sell your data, but maybe they will. There's unlimited potential for abuse from the corporate sector. What the FBI knows about me doesn't worry me much.

mbesto 15y ago

There is an argument (from advertisers, actually had a AE for a digital media company tell me this) that basically says "If we can't track you and your interests then you won't find out about new products and services that serve your personality and interests" On one hand, I think "I can find my own products thank you" while on the other I understand the crowded space and targeting advertising does reduce the signal to noise ratio. (this is debatable I guess?)

joezydeco 15y ago

I'm curious what "losing control" means here. Do you mean they don't feel they have the willpower to resist these hyper-personalized ads? Or do they feel the ads will become so obnoxious and attention-getting (because of the personal nature) that it will interfere with their daily thought patterns?

gghootch 15y ago
"they don't feel they have the willpower to resist these hyper-personalized ads" Although it's not necessarily a discussion of their own willpower but rather whether the masses will lose portions of the power to think for themselves. Not always the same or hyperspecific portions, but we're slowly giving away more and more of our decisions to advertisements. /Disclaimer: not sure whether I paraphrased this correctly./
- joezydeco 15y ago
  I don't believe ads are the only culprit. Daily, and increasingly, we give away our decision making to a myriad of sources. Blogs. Fox News. @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher). Apple product keynotes. Hopefully we can also use the same technology to liberate ourselves from the magnetic attraction of ads and the media and do something positive. I'd look to recent events (Arab Spring, #OWS) as a possible glimmer of hope there.
  - william42 15y ago
    At least we can give away our decision making to a myriad of sources, instead of picking between three television channels and the town crier.

slowpoke 15y ago

> I look forward to the day when an algorithm tells me my taste buds prefer extra spicy beef panda express, order now and have it air delivered to you in ten minutes. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's degenerate, plain and simply. If the day arrives when people give up thinking for themselves, we've truly arrived at an Orwellian society, and your friends are damn right - we're not very far away from this.