4 ms·
I wouldn't be so quick to paint the big ad networks as natural phenomenon like foxes, that just need to eat. After all, foxes don't need to eat 23% more hens y
by titzer 4y ago
I wouldn't be so quick to paint the big ad networks as natural phenomenon like foxes, that just need to eat.
After all, foxes don't need to eat 23% more hens year after year for decades. Their stomachs are only so big.
It's partly the atmosphere of hyper-growth--"growthism" it is sometimes called--that has given rise to this situation. And it is partly because big tech has been gaslighting us about how all this tracking and ad personalization is good for consumers--which it isn't. It benefits advertisers and ad networks, not consumers.
- ISL 4y agoIf you have enough chickens, the number of foxes, too, can grow exponentially with time.
- titzer 4y agoI am getting confused in this whole analogy, TBH, but if chickens were clicks or ad impressions, it seems like foxes have developed an appetite for pigeons, larks, hawks, eagles, rabbits, squirrels, shrews, groundhogs, muskrats, cats, small dogs, mice, rats, and other foxes. They seem to have a bottomless pit for a stomach and are telling us that it's always been that case that foxes were the dominant life form and that we should be grateful for the services they are providing.