4 ms·

This is a snapshot of the cognitive dissonance that causes AdWords to keep growing despite the people building it being smart folks. It doesn’t affect me and I

This is a snapshot of the cognitive dissonance that causes AdWords to keep growing despite the people building it being smart folks. It doesn’t affect me and I like free stuff, so seems fine. There isn’t a missing logical leap in the middle. The tracking is self-evidently anti-democratic.

kylevedder 4y ago
>There isn’t a missing logical leap in the middle. The tracking is self-evidently anti-democratic. If you can't mount a coherent argument that doesn't assume the conclusion, you should consider the possibility that the conclusion simply isn't true.
- dogman144 4y ago
  There is a massive corpus of research on this that I think you’re unaware of. Start with the Snowden leaks and work your way back. Since I can’t reply to below, the general approach of “I don’t know about this so it must not exist and I won’t research” is very backward if you’re in a PhD program. I get what you’re getting at. Google just builds the technology, the rest is up to the users. That said, re: Snowden, IC piggybacked off Google cookies and direct taps into Google infra (PRISM). Email, chat, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, logins, all tracked. The classic approach from tech until recently is what I said above - we just build it! That didn’t work well for the cigarette companies. In other words, it is difficult to convince people that they are doing wrong/causing wrong when their research and pay is dependent on not believing they are.
  - kylevedder 4y ago
    The Snowden leaks were about NSA data collection. Last I checked the NSA was not a tracking ads powered big tech company. Also I hope you realize pointing me to an entire metaverse of memes is not an argument. If this corpus is so massive it should be easy to concretely point to several very specific examples, not hand wave at the entirety of one of the largest national security leaks in American history.
    - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
      This reminds me of the Slashdot days where commenters would have a hard time distinguishing between the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Government (TM). They were roughly convinced that the 3 just formed this nebulous malicious entity.
      - dogman144 4y ago
        I’ve worked for the govt and no they aren’t a nebulous blob of power with tech. What they are though is an entity that has a set of directives supported by access to the data tech provided in conjunction with either not understanding tech or really getting it. The tech company approach of staying willfully ignorant or positions like ITT with “we just build it!” has caused a lot of damage in the hands of the govt users it’s delivered to. I don’t think it’s possible to in good faith ignore this dynamic or pretend it doesn’t exist and tech products’ role in it. This is actually the first time I’ve run into it like this where both the dynamic and the impact is just totally denied.
        Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        > I’ve worked for the govt and no they aren’t a nebulous blob of power with tech. Yes and I've worked for tech companies that use tracking in their products, though not (my products) for ads, so I know what a tech company can and cannot do. > The tech company approach of staying willfully ignorant or positions like ITT with “we just build it!” has caused a lot of damage in the hands of the govt users it’s delivered to. This isn't what anyone in this thread is saying at all, this is a strawman. There are material concerns about collecting too much data. Everything from leaked credentials allowing attackers to access personal data to accidents in targeting systems allowing individual level targeting. But unless you have proof that there are internal systems in tech companies that build up surveillance platforms and that the government is given access to these surveillance platforms, both of which need proof, then this nebulous concern of "all data gathering is EVIL" is just FUD. The fact of the matter is, individual surveillance isn't useful for most tech companies. Cohort or product level information is required to make decisions. Moreover, storing surveillance data is extremely expensive. The amount of drive space and the systems necessary to facilitate this kind of per-human level surveillance requires large engineering teams and systems. Have you ever created a data warehouse? Imagine that but for this supposed surveillance machine. > I don’t think it’s possible to in good faith ignore this dynamic or pretend it doesn’t exist and tech products’ role in it. This is actually the first time I’ve run into it like this where both the dynamic and the impact is just totally denied. Yes everyone on HN and Twitter are convinced that data gathered by tech companies is all evil and that evil billionaires are twirling their mustaches as they enslave entire nations. This is clear. And there are clear risks to data gathering, cogent concerns about social media addiction, and definite monopoly concerns over the networks and moats that social media creates. But to have a coherent conversation on this, we need to move away from "all data gathering is EVIL" to understanding what kinds of data gathering is necessary and useful, and offering individuals rights over their data. TikTok was able to create its own network from scratch which is at least a small counterpoint to the idea that the incumbents are impossible to unseat due to their network advantages. GDPR is a great step in the right direction and I'm hopeful for even more potent legislation to come out. But the sort of fearmongering that happens in these online spaces over data gathering makes it impossible to have a reasoned conversation. And if you think tech companies are terrible entities abusing your data, then what are the telecoms doing? Telecoms in every country control the flow of information in every direction. The metadata available at a telecom down to an individual subscriber far dwarfs what is available at most tech companies. Moreover the PRISM scandal actually happened because of telecom companies. So why the ire at tech companies?
UncleMeat 4y ago
How is it anti-democratic? I'm on board with a ton of criticisms of surveillance capitalism, but "anti-democratic" isn't one I understand.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  It extends its tendrils into government services where corporate authoritarianism subverts democratic ideals. The ill-conceived attempt to force face id for IRS services via a third party is but one example.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  What's the quickest way to bend folks to your will? Apply pressure at their weak points. How would one find them? Anyone who shares information (even inadvertently) with a third-party, that info becomes government property. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32557745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32557745 Watch "The United States of Secrets" on Kanopy and sometimes PBS.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    This feels more like "anti-libertarian" rather than "anti-democratic." The state having fairly tremendous power through warrants and other policing systems is largely orthogonal to the idea of government by the will of the people.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      Splitting hairs, me thinks. If individuals do not have the ability to disagree without ramifications, in absence of safety and security, will of the people can no longer exist.

kylevedder 4y ago

>There isn’t a missing logical leap in the middle. The tracking is self-evidently anti-democratic. If you can't mount a coherent argument that doesn't assume the conclusion, you should consider the possibility that the conclusion simply isn't true.

dogman144 4y ago
There is a massive corpus of research on this that I think you’re unaware of. Start with the Snowden leaks and work your way back. Since I can’t reply to below, the general approach of “I don’t know about this so it must not exist and I won’t research” is very backward if you’re in a PhD program. I get what you’re getting at. Google just builds the technology, the rest is up to the users. That said, re: Snowden, IC piggybacked off Google cookies and direct taps into Google infra (PRISM). Email, chat, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, logins, all tracked. The classic approach from tech until recently is what I said above - we just build it! That didn’t work well for the cigarette companies. In other words, it is difficult to convince people that they are doing wrong/causing wrong when their research and pay is dependent on not believing they are.
- kylevedder 4y ago
  The Snowden leaks were about NSA data collection. Last I checked the NSA was not a tracking ads powered big tech company. Also I hope you realize pointing me to an entire metaverse of memes is not an argument. If this corpus is so massive it should be easy to concretely point to several very specific examples, not hand wave at the entirety of one of the largest national security leaks in American history.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    This reminds me of the Slashdot days where commenters would have a hard time distinguishing between the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Government (TM). They were roughly convinced that the 3 just formed this nebulous malicious entity.
    - dogman144 4y ago
      I’ve worked for the govt and no they aren’t a nebulous blob of power with tech. What they are though is an entity that has a set of directives supported by access to the data tech provided in conjunction with either not understanding tech or really getting it. The tech company approach of staying willfully ignorant or positions like ITT with “we just build it!” has caused a lot of damage in the hands of the govt users it’s delivered to. I don’t think it’s possible to in good faith ignore this dynamic or pretend it doesn’t exist and tech products’ role in it. This is actually the first time I’ve run into it like this where both the dynamic and the impact is just totally denied.
      - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
        > I’ve worked for the govt and no they aren’t a nebulous blob of power with tech. Yes and I've worked for tech companies that use tracking in their products, though not (my products) for ads, so I know what a tech company can and cannot do. > The tech company approach of staying willfully ignorant or positions like ITT with “we just build it!” has caused a lot of damage in the hands of the govt users it’s delivered to. This isn't what anyone in this thread is saying at all, this is a strawman. There are material concerns about collecting too much data. Everything from leaked credentials allowing attackers to access personal data to accidents in targeting systems allowing individual level targeting. But unless you have proof that there are internal systems in tech companies that build up surveillance platforms and that the government is given access to these surveillance platforms, both of which need proof, then this nebulous concern of "all data gathering is EVIL" is just FUD. The fact of the matter is, individual surveillance isn't useful for most tech companies. Cohort or product level information is required to make decisions. Moreover, storing surveillance data is extremely expensive. The amount of drive space and the systems necessary to facilitate this kind of per-human level surveillance requires large engineering teams and systems. Have you ever created a data warehouse? Imagine that but for this supposed surveillance machine. > I don’t think it’s possible to in good faith ignore this dynamic or pretend it doesn’t exist and tech products’ role in it. This is actually the first time I’ve run into it like this where both the dynamic and the impact is just totally denied. Yes everyone on HN and Twitter are convinced that data gathered by tech companies is all evil and that evil billionaires are twirling their mustaches as they enslave entire nations. This is clear. And there are clear risks to data gathering, cogent concerns about social media addiction, and definite monopoly concerns over the networks and moats that social media creates. But to have a coherent conversation on this, we need to move away from "all data gathering is EVIL" to understanding what kinds of data gathering is necessary and useful, and offering individuals rights over their data. TikTok was able to create its own network from scratch which is at least a small counterpoint to the idea that the incumbents are impossible to unseat due to their network advantages. GDPR is a great step in the right direction and I'm hopeful for even more potent legislation to come out. But the sort of fearmongering that happens in these online spaces over data gathering makes it impossible to have a reasoned conversation. And if you think tech companies are terrible entities abusing your data, then what are the telecoms doing? Telecoms in every country control the flow of information in every direction. The metadata available at a telecom down to an individual subscriber far dwarfs what is available at most tech companies. Moreover the PRISM scandal actually happened because of telecom companies. So why the ire at tech companies?

UncleMeat 4y ago

How is it anti-democratic? I'm on board with a ton of criticisms of surveillance capitalism, but "anti-democratic" isn't one I understand.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
It extends its tendrils into government services where corporate authoritarianism subverts democratic ideals. The ill-conceived attempt to force face id for IRS services via a third party is but one example.
mixmastamyk 4y ago
What's the quickest way to bend folks to your will? Apply pressure at their weak points. How would one find them? Anyone who shares information (even inadvertently) with a third-party, that info becomes government property. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32557745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32557745 Watch "The United States of Secrets" on Kanopy and sometimes PBS.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  This feels more like "anti-libertarian" rather than "anti-democratic." The state having fairly tremendous power through warrants and other policing systems is largely orthogonal to the idea of government by the will of the people.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    Splitting hairs, me thinks. If individuals do not have the ability to disagree without ramifications, in absence of safety and security, will of the people can no longer exist.