8 ms·

Misleading title on the site. The real result is: "According to the results of the survey, 80% of young people aged 13 to 17 years old from 13 EU Member State

Misleading title on the site. The real result is: "According to the results of the survey, 80% of young people aged 13 to 17 years old from 13 EU Member States would not feel comfortable being politically active or exploring their sexuality if authorities were able to monitor their digital communication, in order to look for child sexual abuse."

tester756 4y ago
Why is it misleading then?
- Shish2k 4y ago
  Being surveiled for advertising purposes is fine
  - moremetadata 4y ago
    Not when adverts are used to psychologically torture you. For example you might be a heterosexual with public views, espousing the virtues of heterosexuallity, without condemning or maligning non heterosexual people. How would you feel if all the adverts you saw were for non heterosexual people, wuld you feel trolled, harassed, intimidated? Now take those same algorithms that were used to target adverts at you for psychological purposes, and apply them to websites displaying news stories and social media like reddit, and search engine results. Would that amplify the feelings of intimidation and harrassment? Because that is exactly what is going on right now perpetrated by the US tech giants with the collusion of the of various states. The mere mention of this activity, could also make you aware or more aware of this so that you can start to spot it being done to you and others around you.
    - slackdog 4y ago
      Even without tracking, virtually all advertising is a form of psychological warfare. Here's a common sort of ad: an image depicting young popular people having fun in the park, with cans of cola next to them. The message? If you drink our cola, you can have this lifestyle. This sort of advertising is designed to exploit insecurities people feel about themselves and their social life. This is psychological warfare for commercial gain, and it's standard operating practice for the advertising industry.
      - moremetadata 4y ago
        Yes and the infrastructure to target people individually exists, as noted with the political shenanigans that took place getting Trump into office and the UK to vote for Brexit. Just remember with Brexit, Scots were polled first to see if they wanted indepdence at a time when they thought it would not be possible to get the UK to leave the EU, so they didnt vote for independence. Brexit occurred, and now the Scots want independence in order to rejoing the EU. The timing of questions asked are important, as any court room lawyer will know, especially if the defendants answer can be later associated and used against them. The fact this situation is allowed to exist in the hands of unaccountable people and entities namely businesses, is arguably illegal if the laws were to exist against targeted advertising, but we all know big business would b.e against this. TLDR targeted advertising is a way to psychologically hound people into suicide. Its a murder weapon exploiting the needs of business to be efficient with their advertising spend. The criminal perpetrators rely on their victims keeping quiet because no one wants to be humiliated, in much the same way if your parents were wrong 'uns they rely on that parental bond to keep you quiet.
      - digitalengineer 4y ago
        Its been that what for some time now. Ever since psychology took ground: Happiness Machines, https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04
  - slackdog 4y ago
    That is misleading, the article doesn't say that.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Don’t worry EU regulators made a pop up for that, you’re safe now.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    The point is that it's never just "for advertising purposes". It stopped being about ads forever ago. The data that's collected about you "for advertising purposes" ends up being sold to (or just taken by) the government and it ends up in the hands of data brokers and from there it's used by many different groups of people for their own purposes. Companies use that data to decide what products and services they'll tell you they offer, what they'll tell you their policies are, and what prices you'll pay. You might be charged one price and told you have 14 days to make a return, while the next person will be charged less for the same item and be told the return policy is 30 days. Companies are even using that data to decide things like how long to leave you on hold when you call them. Insurance companies use that data to decide how much to charge you. Employers use that data to decide who to hire. Political parties use that data to mislead and manipulate voters. Activists and extremists use that data to watch and target groups and individuals they don't like. Stalkers and abusive partners use that data to track their victims. Police use that data to find suspects and lawyers can use it in court rooms as evidence against you. Being surveilled would (maybe) be okay sometimes if it were only ever used for ads and nothing else, but that's simply not the reality we live in. That data lives forever and whoever has it, or can get it, will use it for whatever they want whenever they want to.
- fatnoah 4y ago
  The poll was specifically about surveillance when discussing certain topics. The teens most likely feel the same way about surveillance in general, but that's not what the poll was about.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    yes, and the poll is more or less concern trolling, where the behavior of teens bears no relation to what they say they care about.
- 3np 4y ago
  Refusing X isn't the same same as being uncomfortable with X.
jjulius 4y ago
More relevant to, and supportive of, the title is this bit: >67% rely on encrypted communication apps like WhatsApp or Signal
- toastal 4y ago
  They were so close! Too bad WhatsApp sends all the metadata through Meta and requires your share you contacts/address book with them … and Signal requires both a SIM card and an Android/iOS primary device.
  - slackdog 4y ago
    It's at least an indication of a general preference for privacy, which sycophants for surveillance capitalists often try to claim doesn't exist ("only you nerds care about privacy, normal people don't care")
    - toastal 4y ago
      Progress indeed. It's the correct trajectory, but let's keep going!
eimrine 4y ago
Exploring a sexuality via any smartphone app or even storing this kind of content on a memory hotstoraged to a proprietary OS (iOS, Android, Windows) is totally silly if you are going to become a politician or somebody who is required to have a clear reputation.
- prottog 4y ago
  Not many 13-17 year olds with enough foresight to think about stuff like that.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I think you don't know todays youth... Most of them are keenly aware of exactly how information is shared or leaked. They know that if they do something stupid in public, there is a good chance of someone catching it on video, it being published, and them being teased or punished for it. Perhaps those born in the 80's might have been happy to do something illegal or stupid as long as it was only trusted friends looking on. But those born in the 2000's won't do something like that even with the audience being just trusted friends for fear of evidence spreading later. They all know how to screenshot a snap message without being detected...
- shakow 4y ago
  > somebody who is required to have a clear reputation. That's definitely the kind of thing we all knew ahead when we were 13-17.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    Well maybe not all of us, but that's an impossible standard to meet. I distinctly remember elementary school classes, some 25 years ago where we had to learn about computer safety and privacy, and what the possible consequences of posting things online could be. We were <10 years old and we understood. I also remember a lot of kids in class working on their html website. I don't see why we should have lower standards for kids today, it's so sad how it all turned out.
otikik 4y ago
I also don’t feel comfortable about that happening to me, and I am 44.
- verisimi 4y ago
  I also don't think it's an 'if authorities monitor'. Governments already covertly monitor online communications - probably since the beginning of the internet. What's really being asked is whether this will be overtly done, with all the social, financial impacts of having private information being shared with the governance system and corporations.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    financial impacts? early teens? their information is already shared with corporations with them not actually caring, you need to draw the dotted lines for me
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> would not feel comfortable being politically active or exploring their sexuality if authorities were able to monitor their digital communication That actually may be seen as a feature and not a bug for the authorities
unity1001 4y ago
> 80% of young people aged 13 to 17 years old from 13 EU Member States would not feel comfortable being politically active And thats the intention of all of these new laws.

tester756 4y ago

Why is it misleading then?

Shish2k 4y ago
Being surveiled for advertising purposes is fine
- moremetadata 4y ago
  Not when adverts are used to psychologically torture you. For example you might be a heterosexual with public views, espousing the virtues of heterosexuallity, without condemning or maligning non heterosexual people. How would you feel if all the adverts you saw were for non heterosexual people, wuld you feel trolled, harassed, intimidated? Now take those same algorithms that were used to target adverts at you for psychological purposes, and apply them to websites displaying news stories and social media like reddit, and search engine results. Would that amplify the feelings of intimidation and harrassment? Because that is exactly what is going on right now perpetrated by the US tech giants with the collusion of the of various states. The mere mention of this activity, could also make you aware or more aware of this so that you can start to spot it being done to you and others around you.
  - slackdog 4y ago
    Even without tracking, virtually all advertising is a form of psychological warfare. Here's a common sort of ad: an image depicting young popular people having fun in the park, with cans of cola next to them. The message? If you drink our cola, you can have this lifestyle. This sort of advertising is designed to exploit insecurities people feel about themselves and their social life. This is psychological warfare for commercial gain, and it's standard operating practice for the advertising industry.
    - moremetadata 4y ago
      Yes and the infrastructure to target people individually exists, as noted with the political shenanigans that took place getting Trump into office and the UK to vote for Brexit. Just remember with Brexit, Scots were polled first to see if they wanted indepdence at a time when they thought it would not be possible to get the UK to leave the EU, so they didnt vote for independence. Brexit occurred, and now the Scots want independence in order to rejoing the EU. The timing of questions asked are important, as any court room lawyer will know, especially if the defendants answer can be later associated and used against them. The fact this situation is allowed to exist in the hands of unaccountable people and entities namely businesses, is arguably illegal if the laws were to exist against targeted advertising, but we all know big business would b.e against this. TLDR targeted advertising is a way to psychologically hound people into suicide. Its a murder weapon exploiting the needs of business to be efficient with their advertising spend. The criminal perpetrators rely on their victims keeping quiet because no one wants to be humiliated, in much the same way if your parents were wrong 'uns they rely on that parental bond to keep you quiet.
    - digitalengineer 4y ago
      Its been that what for some time now. Ever since psychology took ground: Happiness Machines, https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04
- slackdog 4y ago
  That is misleading, the article doesn't say that.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Don’t worry EU regulators made a pop up for that, you’re safe now.
- autoexec 4y ago
  The point is that it's never just "for advertising purposes". It stopped being about ads forever ago. The data that's collected about you "for advertising purposes" ends up being sold to (or just taken by) the government and it ends up in the hands of data brokers and from there it's used by many different groups of people for their own purposes. Companies use that data to decide what products and services they'll tell you they offer, what they'll tell you their policies are, and what prices you'll pay. You might be charged one price and told you have 14 days to make a return, while the next person will be charged less for the same item and be told the return policy is 30 days. Companies are even using that data to decide things like how long to leave you on hold when you call them. Insurance companies use that data to decide how much to charge you. Employers use that data to decide who to hire. Political parties use that data to mislead and manipulate voters. Activists and extremists use that data to watch and target groups and individuals they don't like. Stalkers and abusive partners use that data to track their victims. Police use that data to find suspects and lawyers can use it in court rooms as evidence against you. Being surveilled would (maybe) be okay sometimes if it were only ever used for ads and nothing else, but that's simply not the reality we live in. That data lives forever and whoever has it, or can get it, will use it for whatever they want whenever they want to.
fatnoah 4y ago
The poll was specifically about surveillance when discussing certain topics. The teens most likely feel the same way about surveillance in general, but that's not what the poll was about.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  yes, and the poll is more or less concern trolling, where the behavior of teens bears no relation to what they say they care about.
3np 4y ago
Refusing X isn't the same same as being uncomfortable with X.

jjulius 4y ago

More relevant to, and supportive of, the title is this bit: >67% rely on encrypted communication apps like WhatsApp or Signal

toastal 4y ago
They were so close! Too bad WhatsApp sends all the metadata through Meta and requires your share you contacts/address book with them … and Signal requires both a SIM card and an Android/iOS primary device.
- slackdog 4y ago
  It's at least an indication of a general preference for privacy, which sycophants for surveillance capitalists often try to claim doesn't exist ("only you nerds care about privacy, normal people don't care")
  - toastal 4y ago
    Progress indeed. It's the correct trajectory, but let's keep going!

eimrine 4y ago

Exploring a sexuality via any smartphone app or even storing this kind of content on a memory hotstoraged to a proprietary OS (iOS, Android, Windows) is totally silly if you are going to become a politician or somebody who is required to have a clear reputation.

prottog 4y ago
Not many 13-17 year olds with enough foresight to think about stuff like that.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  I think you don't know todays youth... Most of them are keenly aware of exactly how information is shared or leaked. They know that if they do something stupid in public, there is a good chance of someone catching it on video, it being published, and them being teased or punished for it. Perhaps those born in the 80's might have been happy to do something illegal or stupid as long as it was only trusted friends looking on. But those born in the 2000's won't do something like that even with the audience being just trusted friends for fear of evidence spreading later. They all know how to screenshot a snap message without being detected...
shakow 4y ago
> somebody who is required to have a clear reputation. That's definitely the kind of thing we all knew ahead when we were 13-17.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  Well maybe not all of us, but that's an impossible standard to meet. I distinctly remember elementary school classes, some 25 years ago where we had to learn about computer safety and privacy, and what the possible consequences of posting things online could be. We were <10 years old and we understood. I also remember a lot of kids in class working on their html website. I don't see why we should have lower standards for kids today, it's so sad how it all turned out.

otikik 4y ago

I also don’t feel comfortable about that happening to me, and I am 44.

verisimi 4y ago
I also don't think it's an 'if authorities monitor'. Governments already covertly monitor online communications - probably since the beginning of the internet. What's really being asked is whether this will be overtly done, with all the social, financial impacts of having private information being shared with the governance system and corporations.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  financial impacts? early teens? their information is already shared with corporations with them not actually caring, you need to draw the dotted lines for me

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> would not feel comfortable being politically active or exploring their sexuality if authorities were able to monitor their digital communication That actually may be seen as a feature and not a bug for the authorities

unity1001 4y ago

> 80% of young people aged 13 to 17 years old from 13 EU Member States would not feel comfortable being politically active And thats the intention of all of these new laws.