3 ms·

> 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

> 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".
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        > You made it very clear that there is no answer. I've given many examples of the difference between a first party business relationship and the sorts of worldwide spying that Facebook and Google have been engaging in. >How is a first party business relationship with your own customer different than buying a copy of people's credit card transaction data, spying on receipts emailed by other businesses, turning on location tracking by default, paying children to give root access to their device (Onavo), setting up user tracking on a huge swath of websites (Google Analytics, Facebook Like Button), and the other sorts relentless spying tactics that we have seen from companies with a surveillance capitalism business model? As I've pointed out previously, this isn't the same thing as Amazon having a record of things I've purchased from Amazon. >I didn't even attempt to convince you You haven't convinced anyone of your favorite straw man.

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".
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        > You made it very clear that there is no answer. I've given many examples of the difference between a first party business relationship and the sorts of worldwide spying that Facebook and Google have been engaging in. >How is a first party business relationship with your own customer different than buying a copy of people's credit card transaction data, spying on receipts emailed by other businesses, turning on location tracking by default, paying children to give root access to their device (Onavo), setting up user tracking on a huge swath of websites (Google Analytics, Facebook Like Button), and the other sorts relentless spying tactics that we have seen from companies with a surveillance capitalism business model? As I've pointed out previously, this isn't the same thing as Amazon having a record of things I've purchased from Amazon. >I didn't even attempt to convince you You haven't convinced anyone of your favorite straw man.