3 ms·
Like you, my problem isn't advertising, but the tracking. Though unlike your position this isn't because I block the adverts regardless. I wouldn't block the ad
by dspillett 3y ago
Like you, my problem isn't advertising, but the tracking. Though unlike your position this isn't because I block the adverts regardless. I wouldn't block the advertising if it were not for it being intimately linked with the tracking & recording. Apart from simply avoiding sites that carry rudely irritating adverts (huge pop-overs, auto-playing audio & video, …) that is.
> People don't get sent to re-education camps (or worse) by companies trying to sell dog treats.
No, but they might by state agencies that gain access to the data (by fair means, at least as defined by their laws, or foul) to use as part of a larger profile.
My personal concern isn't state entities. Maybe this is some of my old-fashioned-ness speaking out but the idea of being followed around is just icky much like being followed home from the pub of an evening, or otherwise tracked in the real world, would be.
Of course, there are people for whom state agencies are a concern, and not just state agencies but various negative activist groups and other undesirables: I know a few people who don't want parts of their personal lives (gender status, abortion, the fact they consider themselves atheist, etc.) tracked because in the wrong hands it could, even in 2023, lead them and/or their loved ones to come to harm. They don't want an advertising company holding information about them because this is just one hack away from a lot of other groups having the information, and while it is highly unlikely that they are tracking such information they likely have something that could help derive it (location data being the most obvious factor there, and advertiser love to track that).
- SoftTalker 3y agoI agree, there's a creepiness to it, but demographic-based target marketing isn't exactly new. Remember when products used to come with a "warranty registration card" that not only asked for your name and address and phone number but your income, SSN, other products you owned, hobbies, age, marital status, etc? Or you'd enter a contest to win something, and the entry form asked for similar information? All of that went into databases that were bought and sold, matched and merged with each other, for purposes of lead generation and target marketing. What Meta and Google are doing is nothing new, they just have much better collection and segmentation than was ever possible, and it's much more covert than what was ever possible.
- JohnFen 3y ago> What Meta and Google are doing is nothing new The new part is making it nonoptional. You never had to enter a contest or send in a warranty card, after all.
- dspillett 3y agoAll those were up-front and optional (though maybe the wording made the details seem less optional). The surveillance done by the advertising industry these days is definitely not up-front nor optional where they can possibly make it automatic/required/both. > What Meta and Google are doing It isn't just Meta and Google. It is a great many companies large and small. > is nothing new Even if I accepted the equivalence, the industry having done a smaller version of this surveillance in the past doesn't make it right. My friend traded a bit of weed in the 90s, that would be no reason for us to take an “it is what it is” attitude if he traded a ton of crack today!