4 ms·

It's not my revenue. If you believe any business is evil if it has has paid salaries out of the revenues boosted by efficient advertising, that's your prerogati

by Satam 4y ago

It's not my revenue. If you believe any business is evil if it has has paid salaries out of the revenues boosted by efficient advertising, that's your prerogative. I am open to hearing how exactly targeted advertising has damaged our society but I will not accept vague notions of spying and privacy as an argument. Most of the entities powerful enough to spy on you currently, will continue to do so discretely.

starbugs 4y ago
Does "Cambridge Analytica" ring a bell, maybe?
- Satam 4y ago
  Could you elaborate which part of Cambridge Analytica's actions you object to? Not that I disagree but I don't consider targeted advertising, that is available to everyone during election, as a smoking gun of any kind. I assume you are more so referring to the fact they illegally obtained people's data (gathering of which wasn't related to targeted advertising).
  - starbugs 4y ago
    To be honest, I don't remember the details and I don't want to waste time looking them up again anymore. My opinion (and that seems to be that of many) is that targeted advertising is not desirable. Neither from a user perspective (I don't want to give my data to a FANG company) nor from a society perspective. It opens up the flood gates for misuse like the CA case and it doesn't make the world a better place. And it's not only that isolated case, it's FB's own behavior - things like scraping and cross referencing Bluetooth network and contact information. It's a recipe for disaster. Find a better business model.
    - Satam 4y ago
      You asked me 'Does "Cambridge Analytica" ring a bell?', but apparently it barely rang anything for yourself. I see you haven't researched the topic in question and have stated you are not going "to waste time". This actually succinctly summarizes most of the knee-jerk reactions.
      - starbugs 4y ago
        I never said that I didn't react in a knee-jerk fashion though. I think it's appropriate to react this way in this context.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by Satam 4y ago

starbugs 4y ago

Does "Cambridge Analytica" ring a bell, maybe?

Satam 4y ago
Could you elaborate which part of Cambridge Analytica's actions you object to? Not that I disagree but I don't consider targeted advertising, that is available to everyone during election, as a smoking gun of any kind. I assume you are more so referring to the fact they illegally obtained people's data (gathering of which wasn't related to targeted advertising).
- starbugs 4y ago
  To be honest, I don't remember the details and I don't want to waste time looking them up again anymore. My opinion (and that seems to be that of many) is that targeted advertising is not desirable. Neither from a user perspective (I don't want to give my data to a FANG company) nor from a society perspective. It opens up the flood gates for misuse like the CA case and it doesn't make the world a better place. And it's not only that isolated case, it's FB's own behavior - things like scraping and cross referencing Bluetooth network and contact information. It's a recipe for disaster. Find a better business model.
  - Satam 4y ago
    You asked me 'Does "Cambridge Analytica" ring a bell?', but apparently it barely rang anything for yourself. I see you haven't researched the topic in question and have stated you are not going "to waste time". This actually succinctly summarizes most of the knee-jerk reactions.
    - starbugs 4y ago
      I never said that I didn't react in a knee-jerk fashion though. I think it's appropriate to react this way in this context.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]