3 ms·

This too conspiratorial for me, they could have easily figured out your intentions via other means. Before jumping to this conclusion, I think it is worth send

by rany_ 3y ago

This too conspiratorial for me, they could have easily figured out your intentions via other means. Before jumping to this conclusion, I think it is worth sending messages about topics that are legitimately random and you have never searched online. This seems more fair, I really doubt Meta would lie about something this important because they could get destroyed with lawsuits..

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Okay, I have one of those anecdotes too. I'll preface this with the acknowledgement that I'm a middle-aged man in a typical Viagra demographic, although I am single and not sexually active, which any algorithm should know. On this day, I had never seen a FB ad for Viagra. I was on Facebook one day and became rather frustrated with how clogged my feed was, lots of irrelevant stuff in there, including ads that weren't well-targeted. And I was also logged into my friend's MUD, which supports no encryption at all, and so I ranted a while about Facebook and advertising, and then I said something like "who knows, the next thing I see could be a Viagra ad!" Then seconds later, I scrolled down on Facebook and was treated to a Viagra ad. It was hilarious, and I couldn't ignore the happenstance of that. The only plausible way this could've happened is if my ISP is siphoning off text from any unencrypted connection and selling keywords in realtime to Meta? More realistically, I suppose, my number was just up, and that ad was going to be served no matter what I said on a MUD. I did actually try to trigger the algorithm by asking the MUD if anyone knew some tasteful window treatments I could purchase, but I couldn't elicit any ads for window treatments from anywhere.
quitit 3y ago
While the recency bias would seem obvious. It's easy to experiment, visit wikipedia and use the random article feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

by rany_ 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Okay, I have one of those anecdotes too. I'll preface this with the acknowledgement that I'm a middle-aged man in a typical Viagra demographic, although I am single and not sexually active, which any algorithm should know. On this day, I had never seen a FB ad for Viagra. I was on Facebook one day and became rather frustrated with how clogged my feed was, lots of irrelevant stuff in there, including ads that weren't well-targeted. And I was also logged into my friend's MUD, which supports no encryption at all, and so I ranted a while about Facebook and advertising, and then I said something like "who knows, the next thing I see could be a Viagra ad!" Then seconds later, I scrolled down on Facebook and was treated to a Viagra ad. It was hilarious, and I couldn't ignore the happenstance of that. The only plausible way this could've happened is if my ISP is siphoning off text from any unencrypted connection and selling keywords in realtime to Meta? More realistically, I suppose, my number was just up, and that ad was going to be served no matter what I said on a MUD. I did actually try to trigger the algorithm by asking the MUD if anyone knew some tasteful window treatments I could purchase, but I couldn't elicit any ads for window treatments from anywhere.

quitit 3y ago

While the recency bias would seem obvious. It's easy to experiment, visit wikipedia and use the random article feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random