3 ms·

> Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page, just like it

> Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page, just like it's possible to sell ads based on the content of a magazine. It's just not as profitable as relentlessly spying on everyone. > Google purchased transaction data to connect online behavior to the real world and refine their Persona profile Google already has more than enough data on it's customers through their search history. They don't need to relentlessly spy on every aspect of your life, including your bank account, to turn a profit.

rickdeckard 4y ago
> It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page. Yes. But at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. If Bentley shops for ads tomorrow, they can select Personas like "Age 40-60", "owns a car" and many others from Meta as well as Google as well as Apple. Those are the "ads relevant to you" Apple talks about in their T&C. Again, I don't like it either, but let's not buy into the illusion that Apple is not entering this exact same industry to sell their customers' attention to the highest bidder. > Google already has more than enough data on it's customers And so does Apple. Time to start a lucrative ads business.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. So they can run their ads on web pages that are related to luxury goods. It's entirely possible to sell ads without relentlessly spying on everyone. It's just less profitable.
  - rickdeckard 4y ago
    Hence "Yes". Lots of things are "possible", it's just not how things are. We're circling around a straw-man
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      Yes, for some reason you're pushing the straw man argument that relentlessly spying on everyone, even people who are not your customer at all, is the same thing as having a first party business relationship with your own customer.
      - rickdeckard 4y ago
        Nope. I'm asking how the persona creation of Google/Meta for selling ads is any different to Apple doing the very same thing, and if those actions when done by one party qualify as "spying", what are the same actions done by Apple then. You avoided clarifying your view on Apple's actions for hours and instead kept arguing how Google/Meta's action are clearly espionage. Now you inadvertently clarified that Apple is free to do all of the same that Google/Meta are doing because when Apple is doing it it is a first-party "business relationship". When Google/Meta is doing it, it is somehow never a first-party relationship but always an outside actor spying on people who don't use their products. Despite both parties doing this to refine the persona's they have of their platform users. That's settled then. Have a good day.
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        You remain completely unconvincing on this topic, and relying on straw man arguments isn't helping.
        rickdeckard 4y ago
        Haha I didn't even attempt to convince you. You keep circling around a "good company is good, bad company is bad" narrative. You condemn the collection of data for the purpose of targeted advertising, because that's "spying". You don't care if Apple is also doing advertising, because it's the collection of data which is problematic. I just asked how Apple is expected to sell targeted ads any differently than collecting their users' data (to create personas for ads), and you keep reframing it to reply how others are "bad companies" because they collect userdata. This is the straw man argument you keep creating. You made it very clear that there is no answer. To you Apple is simply different because they are a "good company".

rickdeckard 4y ago

> It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page. Yes. But at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. If Bentley shops for ads tomorrow, they can select Personas like "Age 40-60", "owns a car" and many others from Meta as well as Google as well as Apple. Those are the "ads relevant to you" Apple talks about in their T&C. Again, I don't like it either, but let's not buy into the illusion that Apple is not entering this exact same industry to sell their customers' attention to the highest bidder. > Google already has more than enough data on it's customers And so does Apple. Time to start a lucrative ads business.

GeekyBear 4y ago
> at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. So they can run their ads on web pages that are related to luxury goods. It's entirely possible to sell ads without relentlessly spying on everyone. It's just less profitable.
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  Hence "Yes". Lots of things are "possible", it's just not how things are. We're circling around a straw-man
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    Yes, for some reason you're pushing the straw man argument that relentlessly spying on everyone, even people who are not your customer at all, is the same thing as having a first party business relationship with your own customer.
    - rickdeckard 4y ago
      Nope. I'm asking how the persona creation of Google/Meta for selling ads is any different to Apple doing the very same thing, and if those actions when done by one party qualify as "spying", what are the same actions done by Apple then. You avoided clarifying your view on Apple's actions for hours and instead kept arguing how Google/Meta's action are clearly espionage. Now you inadvertently clarified that Apple is free to do all of the same that Google/Meta are doing because when Apple is doing it it is a first-party "business relationship". When Google/Meta is doing it, it is somehow never a first-party relationship but always an outside actor spying on people who don't use their products. Despite both parties doing this to refine the persona's they have of their platform users. That's settled then. Have a good day.
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        You remain completely unconvincing on this topic, and relying on straw man arguments isn't helping.
        rickdeckard 4y ago
        Haha I didn't even attempt to convince you. You keep circling around a "good company is good, bad company is bad" narrative. You condemn the collection of data for the purpose of targeted advertising, because that's "spying". You don't care if Apple is also doing advertising, because it's the collection of data which is problematic. I just asked how Apple is expected to sell targeted ads any differently than collecting their users' data (to create personas for ads), and you keep reframing it to reply how others are "bad companies" because they collect userdata. This is the straw man argument you keep creating. You made it very clear that there is no answer. To you Apple is simply different because they are a "good company".