4 ms·

No, I checked for that multiple times as I was around when that happened. It was an ad served up directly by Google that lead to a phishing website and phone n

by bcrl 4y ago

No, I checked for that multiple times as I was around when that happened. It was an ad served up directly by Google that lead to a phishing website and phone numbers on it. His filter bubble is very different from mine, and it's clear that the peddlers of malware and scams use ad targeting to hit the elderly with ads that try to take advantage of them. This is a major downside of ad targeting: they're more effective for both good and bad purposes. Ads really should be less ephemeral than they are. Sometimes I see an ad I'm interested in but miss it before clicking a link at which point it's gone after hitting the back button. Similarly, if an ad is for a scam, there needs to be a way to go back, find it, and then flag it.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
You gave me a fantastic insight Ive been wondering why a loved one is constantly getting phishing emails. Ive been fighting a losing battle using email filters to contain the phishing fraud emails. Your post gave me the idea to clean up his browsing caches. Thank you
- bcrl 4y ago
  Just login to your own Google account on their device. =-) That'll result in some pretty dramatic changes in the content they see (and probably you too as things get blended over time).
WorldMaker 4y ago
I increasingly believe that there are no legitimate uses of micro-targeted ads and only harmful ones. The only real distinction is whether or not it is harmful to the target (user), the advertiser (failed impressions), and/or the advertisement network (Google allowing malware companies to spend pennies on the dollar to sell bad software malware launchers in turn makes Google look bad). Micro-targeting may go down as a multi-billion dollar industry-wide mistake by the time this plays out past logical extremes like this "most software download ads are now malware launchers and Google can't seem to or doesn't want to fix it".
- bcrl 4y ago
  I agree on that point. I believe that micro-targeting of ads is how harmful content (outright scams as well as conspiracy theories and other misinformation) is able to get promoted in ways that allow it to proliferate which was not possible in the past. My theory is that back when TV stations and newspapers were locally owned, editorial staff filtered out the extreme and harmful content as a means to protect their own reputation. Being trustworthy was important if the owner was an active member in the community. If you wanted to promote conspiracy theories, the reasonable people who saw those ads would complain about them and go to the editors and owners of the content delivery platforms to get those ads pulled. The whole system was self regulating in a way that online platforms have made impossible. As ownership of content platforms is disconnected from local communities, it becomes more profitable to engage in exploitative behaviour that would not be acceptable on a local scale. Computers simply don't care if you trust them or not, and we the programmers have yet to make that an important factor in how platforms decide which content is promoted to end users. I have no idea how to improve this situation outside of legislation by our governments.
  - LocalH 4y ago
    >As ownership of content platforms is disconnected from local communities, it becomes more profitable to engage in exploitative behaviour that would not be acceptable on a local scale. Computers simply don't care if you trust them or not, and we the programmers have yet to make that an important factor in how platforms decide which content is promoted to end users. I believe this is by design, at some level. The programmers don't make that an important factor, because the ones who actually make the decisions don't make that an important factor.

by bcrl 4y ago

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

You gave me a fantastic insight Ive been wondering why a loved one is constantly getting phishing emails. Ive been fighting a losing battle using email filters to contain the phishing fraud emails. Your post gave me the idea to clean up his browsing caches. Thank you

bcrl 4y ago
Just login to your own Google account on their device. =-) That'll result in some pretty dramatic changes in the content they see (and probably you too as things get blended over time).

WorldMaker 4y ago

I increasingly believe that there are no legitimate uses of micro-targeted ads and only harmful ones. The only real distinction is whether or not it is harmful to the target (user), the advertiser (failed impressions), and/or the advertisement network (Google allowing malware companies to spend pennies on the dollar to sell bad software malware launchers in turn makes Google look bad). Micro-targeting may go down as a multi-billion dollar industry-wide mistake by the time this plays out past logical extremes like this "most software download ads are now malware launchers and Google can't seem to or doesn't want to fix it".

bcrl 4y ago
I agree on that point. I believe that micro-targeting of ads is how harmful content (outright scams as well as conspiracy theories and other misinformation) is able to get promoted in ways that allow it to proliferate which was not possible in the past. My theory is that back when TV stations and newspapers were locally owned, editorial staff filtered out the extreme and harmful content as a means to protect their own reputation. Being trustworthy was important if the owner was an active member in the community. If you wanted to promote conspiracy theories, the reasonable people who saw those ads would complain about them and go to the editors and owners of the content delivery platforms to get those ads pulled. The whole system was self regulating in a way that online platforms have made impossible. As ownership of content platforms is disconnected from local communities, it becomes more profitable to engage in exploitative behaviour that would not be acceptable on a local scale. Computers simply don't care if you trust them or not, and we the programmers have yet to make that an important factor in how platforms decide which content is promoted to end users. I have no idea how to improve this situation outside of legislation by our governments.
- LocalH 4y ago
  >As ownership of content platforms is disconnected from local communities, it becomes more profitable to engage in exploitative behaviour that would not be acceptable on a local scale. Computers simply don't care if you trust them or not, and we the programmers have yet to make that an important factor in how platforms decide which content is promoted to end users. I believe this is by design, at some level. The programmers don't make that an important factor, because the ones who actually make the decisions don't make that an important factor.