3 ms·

I like that they directly tried to answer this question, but I still think the "so what" case is stronger, for me anyway. I don't use an ad blocker and there a

I like that they directly tried to answer this question, but I still think the "so what" case is stronger, for me anyway. I don't use an ad blocker and there are certain sites that are annoying, but I think the biggest influence on me is that I avoid those websites. I don't notice the actual ads very often (other than as an annoyance) and I don't buy very much. What I buy seems more influenced by other things like Wirecutter reviews. Should I stop reading Wirecutter because they influence what I buy? We buy quite a bit through Amazon. Their problems with dodgy vendors and counterfeits are well known, but we're skeptical. My wife returns things for minor flaws fairly often. It's possible we're subtly harmed by something we bought, but I see ads playing a very minor role in this, compared to product listings. Another example of influence is restaurant reviews. My wife and I both look up nearby restaurants in Google Maps and this is nearly all the information we use to decide which restaurant to go to. (Sometimes she uses Yelp.) How are we harmed by this? Maybe there's some restaurant we missed, but I think we eat pretty well anyway. I don't think we are harmed by using Google for that. Most privacy arguments seem to be theoretical and/or ideological, not practical. I'm sure you can think of some, and I can easily anticipate them. It's a common trope. But if it's not a practical argument, it's not going to be very convincing to me.

hsosvdodv 3y ago
in the long term you end up paying more because of all the returns. all for the privilege of being abused by countless fake and incorrect listings trying to fool you when trying to but something (with a 25% change the you will wait, spend time to return, and still not have the item) yet you claim that you move away from sites that merely annoy you with ads. I'm highly skeptical.
- skybrian 3y ago
  If that's the cost, I think we're comfortable paying it, rather than not being able to return things. It's not that I don't see ads, but I do tend to prefer websites like Hacker News more than ad-driven websites. I do see ads on linked news sites.
javajosh 3y ago
The real reason, which I don't hear voiced often, is because you're not getting enough value for your data. Your data has value to advertisers, but to many other entities, private and public. Your data has value, and Google has high profit margins on that value. To be able to extract more value from your own data for yourself, you need to be able to deny Google access to it, and then sell it back to them. If enough people do this, it becomes something like a collective bargaining tool, and then some of Google's enormous societal windfall actually gets returned...to society.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Maybe, but this is an example of a theoretical / ideological argument. If we needed more money, it seems like there are easier ways to get it than trying to get a better bargain for information about us? We could be more careful about spending. I could shop around more. There are games with credit card rewards that I don't really play. I could invest better.
  - javajosh 3y ago
    I think you're ignoring an important cost/benefit analysis. The upside may be small, on the order of 10's of dollars per month. But the downside is very large - scammers or corrupt governments tracking your behavior to fuel prosecutions, etc. The expected value (EV) of controlling your data is actually rather high when you look at the whole picture, and Google buying you off with webmail, videos and search no longer seems like such a good deal.
- theprivacydad 3y ago
  yes
trustmebro 3y ago
You do notice the ads, though. That's the whole point of visual ads: you are being influenced to buy certain brands in the periphery.
- skybrian 3y ago
  I don't think they influence me much? They might remind me of something I wanted to do anyway, but usually they are irrelevant. At scale, ads do something, but what it is isn't very clear. Some people are convinced that ads do real harm but the evidence seems fairly shaky. There are lots of dodgy psychological theories out there. Here's one dodgy theory (with little evidence behind it) about how ads might work: https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/ https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/ Also, how they work in general is different from whether they work in me. I think observing my own thoughts processes and behavior is better evidence than someone on the Internet telling me what they believe about ads.
  - trustmebro 3y ago
    There's a pretty simple test: name a brand. Did you successfully name a brand? Then ads work.
    - skybrian 3y ago
      Yes, I believe they do work in that respect. But when is being able to name brands harmful?
ashleyn 3y ago
There was a significant problem years ago, annoying to power users but dangerous to most other users, where I would be on a website reading an article and then all of a sudden I get redirected out of the article into "Hit 5 ducks and win today's prize" or "Your computer has malware and requires remediation" - intrusive scams seeking to deceive the user into installing malware. This problem was bad enough that I installed Brave on my phone simply for the rootless adblocker. These redirects even came from reputable news websites like WaPo or NYT - they weren't confined to "literally who?" websites using "literally who?" ad networks. Ever since then I've used an adblocker on both desktop and mobile simply for this reason. And I've recommended others install adblockers as well, because they may not be aware that it's not your operating system telling you you have malware, it's a website trying to get you to install malware. If this problem has receded in recent years, I'd say, "Great!" and be a little more chill about it. But until then, I staunchly recommend ad blockers just as protection from malware redirects that Google et al seemed very unconcerned about or unable to deal with effectively.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Haven't seen it in quite a while so I think it must have been dealt with somehow.
tracker1 3y ago
Amazon really bugs me in that you can't filter by seller anymore... I would usually filter and buy only from Amazon. Makes it literally harder to use, and I've actually started using it less as a result. For me, the bigger risk in the ad networks is the viral vector. It's way too easy to inject ads with viral outcomes into the ad networks, still. It's the same reason I disabled flash at home, when I found out I could get local filesystem access from some work projects. It's more about sanitation than anything else. The fact that tracking has become wholy excessive is the other issue... when you start seeing ads for things mentioned only in voice conversation, it's creepy to say the least. And frankly, I'm done with it. uBlock origin, privacy guard, pihole all in place.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Not sure about viruses. Yes, ads have been used as a vector, and there are zero days, but I think mainstream OSes and browsers have pretty good security if you keep up to date? I suspect phishing attacks are a bigger issue. It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between spooky coincidences and actual targeted ads. My money is on spooky coincidences, but it's a problem that many people imagine otherwise, and there's no way to prove it one way or the other because modern technology is basically magic as far as most users are concerned.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    You'd lose that money... it's been shown time and again that your phone is tracking your conversations for ads, especially android and the home devices. As an experiment, start talking about needing baby supplies regularly, not in any other format (assuming you aren't and don't have one)... you might just be surprised about the outcome.
    - skybrian 3y ago
      I’m skeptical. How do you think this has been proved?

hsosvdodv 3y ago

in the long term you end up paying more because of all the returns. all for the privilege of being abused by countless fake and incorrect listings trying to fool you when trying to but something (with a 25% change the you will wait, spend time to return, and still not have the item) yet you claim that you move away from sites that merely annoy you with ads. I'm highly skeptical.

skybrian 3y ago
If that's the cost, I think we're comfortable paying it, rather than not being able to return things. It's not that I don't see ads, but I do tend to prefer websites like Hacker News more than ad-driven websites. I do see ads on linked news sites.

javajosh 3y ago

The real reason, which I don't hear voiced often, is because you're not getting enough value for your data. Your data has value to advertisers, but to many other entities, private and public. Your data has value, and Google has high profit margins on that value. To be able to extract more value from your own data for yourself, you need to be able to deny Google access to it, and then sell it back to them. If enough people do this, it becomes something like a collective bargaining tool, and then some of Google's enormous societal windfall actually gets returned...to society.

skybrian 3y ago
Maybe, but this is an example of a theoretical / ideological argument. If we needed more money, it seems like there are easier ways to get it than trying to get a better bargain for information about us? We could be more careful about spending. I could shop around more. There are games with credit card rewards that I don't really play. I could invest better.
- javajosh 3y ago
  I think you're ignoring an important cost/benefit analysis. The upside may be small, on the order of 10's of dollars per month. But the downside is very large - scammers or corrupt governments tracking your behavior to fuel prosecutions, etc. The expected value (EV) of controlling your data is actually rather high when you look at the whole picture, and Google buying you off with webmail, videos and search no longer seems like such a good deal.
theprivacydad 3y ago
yes

trustmebro 3y ago

You do notice the ads, though. That's the whole point of visual ads: you are being influenced to buy certain brands in the periphery.

skybrian 3y ago
I don't think they influence me much? They might remind me of something I wanted to do anyway, but usually they are irrelevant. At scale, ads do something, but what it is isn't very clear. Some people are convinced that ads do real harm but the evidence seems fairly shaky. There are lots of dodgy psychological theories out there. Here's one dodgy theory (with little evidence behind it) about how ads might work: https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/ https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/ Also, how they work in general is different from whether they work in me. I think observing my own thoughts processes and behavior is better evidence than someone on the Internet telling me what they believe about ads.
- trustmebro 3y ago
  There's a pretty simple test: name a brand. Did you successfully name a brand? Then ads work.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    Yes, I believe they do work in that respect. But when is being able to name brands harmful?

ashleyn 3y ago

There was a significant problem years ago, annoying to power users but dangerous to most other users, where I would be on a website reading an article and then all of a sudden I get redirected out of the article into "Hit 5 ducks and win today's prize" or "Your computer has malware and requires remediation" - intrusive scams seeking to deceive the user into installing malware. This problem was bad enough that I installed Brave on my phone simply for the rootless adblocker. These redirects even came from reputable news websites like WaPo or NYT - they weren't confined to "literally who?" websites using "literally who?" ad networks. Ever since then I've used an adblocker on both desktop and mobile simply for this reason. And I've recommended others install adblockers as well, because they may not be aware that it's not your operating system telling you you have malware, it's a website trying to get you to install malware. If this problem has receded in recent years, I'd say, "Great!" and be a little more chill about it. But until then, I staunchly recommend ad blockers just as protection from malware redirects that Google et al seemed very unconcerned about or unable to deal with effectively.

skybrian 3y ago
Haven't seen it in quite a while so I think it must have been dealt with somehow.

tracker1 3y ago

Amazon really bugs me in that you can't filter by seller anymore... I would usually filter and buy only from Amazon. Makes it literally harder to use, and I've actually started using it less as a result. For me, the bigger risk in the ad networks is the viral vector. It's way too easy to inject ads with viral outcomes into the ad networks, still. It's the same reason I disabled flash at home, when I found out I could get local filesystem access from some work projects. It's more about sanitation than anything else. The fact that tracking has become wholy excessive is the other issue... when you start seeing ads for things mentioned only in voice conversation, it's creepy to say the least. And frankly, I'm done with it. uBlock origin, privacy guard, pihole all in place.

skybrian 3y ago
Not sure about viruses. Yes, ads have been used as a vector, and there are zero days, but I think mainstream OSes and browsers have pretty good security if you keep up to date? I suspect phishing attacks are a bigger issue. It can be quite difficult to tell the difference between spooky coincidences and actual targeted ads. My money is on spooky coincidences, but it's a problem that many people imagine otherwise, and there's no way to prove it one way or the other because modern technology is basically magic as far as most users are concerned.
- tracker1 3y ago
  You'd lose that money... it's been shown time and again that your phone is tracking your conversations for ads, especially android and the home devices. As an experiment, start talking about needing baby supplies regularly, not in any other format (assuming you aren't and don't have one)... you might just be surprised about the outcome.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    I’m skeptical. How do you think this has been proved?