4 ms·

> I wonder what it will take for people to finally get fed up with creepy advertising companies. As long as people get "free stuff" people won't get fed up.

spandrew 3y ago
It doesn't matter whether it's free or you're paying either — your consumer data from the grocery store and other retail purchasers is already tied to the ad grid too. If you buy a can of cat food you'll get cat toy ads on Instagram. The harsh reality, despite what privacy pundits might say, is that people... just don't really care. And that's fine? It's great Apple lets me tell an app not to track me. But if they didn't? It doesn't make material difference to me. Okay I bought cat food and now I see cat toys Instagram ads that I may or may not buy... okay? It's not like insurance companies are able to use the data to deny you health coverage or something (yet, anyway). It's just used to support more consumerism atm. When that bridge is crossed then people might care, until then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- frankish 3y ago
  Do you not see a problem with ads in Instagram in general? Ads follow us everywhere and there's no escape. I'm personally against ads in my mail, billboards, and pretty much everywhere else where my default context is not to buy something. If I go to a pet store and get cat ads--even based on my preferences shopping there--then I think that would be fair. But ads are currently way too aggressive and essentially stalk us everywhere. Another aspect is how misleading and/or manipulative they are. Why aren't ads more reasonable with a tl;dr about the product and then some pros/cons of it over alternative options?
Matumio 3y ago
I went to a routine check-up at the ophthalmologist. Later I got an email with the PDF bill. Except the PDF wasn't in the email. I had to visit the site of whatever service provider they use. I had to login with 2FA and accept their terms. The terms allow third parties to send me targeted advertisement based on my medical history. (They are very explicit about that. I guess that's progress... This is in Europe.) So the stuff I get "for free" when I sell my medical history is the right to view my own medical bills. If I don't agree, I just get charged some random amount via my health insurance. I could bother them to share their copy, but by default they don't.
ryandrake 3y ago
What "free stuff" is OP getting from Target and CVS in exchange for the data they are collecting and sharing? Nothing. We're already not getting free stuff and people still aren't fed up.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Target and CVS are not "advertising companies". And if you'd like you can pay cash, no? The indirection (ad company to retailer) is intentional.
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    Given companies are doing subject tracking with in-store cameras and can use facial recognition to tell who you are, cash isn't going to be sufficient. They'll be able to build a pretty compelling shopping profile and can tie associate your cash purchases to your profile. Sure, it's not 100% fool-proof, but it doesn't need to be to be a massive privacy invasion. I suppose you could wear a mask, but that's generally frowned upon in stores.
    - OmarShehata 3y ago
      The industry is still struggling to track who's clicking on ads properly in all cases...we're very far from this idea of tracking cash purchases & building a profile with facial recognition. This sounds like science fiction. Are there any companies actually doing anything like this? Closest thing I know is companies who sell "foot traffic" data, of who walks in front of your store. But that's done with phones pinging wifi networks passively as you walk, not anything as fancy as facial recognition. Example: https://grapeseedmedia.com/blog/foot-traffic-data/ https://grapeseedmedia.com/blog/foot-traffic-data/
      - yomlica8 3y ago
        K-Mart apparently tracks with facial recognition. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-13/bunnings-kmart-investigated-over-facial-recognition-technology/101233372 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-13/bunnings-kmart-invest...

spandrew 3y ago

It doesn't matter whether it's free or you're paying either — your consumer data from the grocery store and other retail purchasers is already tied to the ad grid too. If you buy a can of cat food you'll get cat toy ads on Instagram. The harsh reality, despite what privacy pundits might say, is that people... just don't really care. And that's fine? It's great Apple lets me tell an app not to track me. But if they didn't? It doesn't make material difference to me. Okay I bought cat food and now I see cat toys Instagram ads that I may or may not buy... okay? It's not like insurance companies are able to use the data to deny you health coverage or something (yet, anyway). It's just used to support more consumerism atm. When that bridge is crossed then people might care, until then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

frankish 3y ago
Do you not see a problem with ads in Instagram in general? Ads follow us everywhere and there's no escape. I'm personally against ads in my mail, billboards, and pretty much everywhere else where my default context is not to buy something. If I go to a pet store and get cat ads--even based on my preferences shopping there--then I think that would be fair. But ads are currently way too aggressive and essentially stalk us everywhere. Another aspect is how misleading and/or manipulative they are. Why aren't ads more reasonable with a tl;dr about the product and then some pros/cons of it over alternative options?

Matumio 3y ago

I went to a routine check-up at the ophthalmologist. Later I got an email with the PDF bill. Except the PDF wasn't in the email. I had to visit the site of whatever service provider they use. I had to login with 2FA and accept their terms. The terms allow third parties to send me targeted advertisement based on my medical history. (They are very explicit about that. I guess that's progress... This is in Europe.) So the stuff I get "for free" when I sell my medical history is the right to view my own medical bills. If I don't agree, I just get charged some random amount via my health insurance. I could bother them to share their copy, but by default they don't.

ryandrake 3y ago

What "free stuff" is OP getting from Target and CVS in exchange for the data they are collecting and sharing? Nothing. We're already not getting free stuff and people still aren't fed up.

endisneigh 3y ago
Target and CVS are not "advertising companies". And if you'd like you can pay cash, no? The indirection (ad company to retailer) is intentional.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Given companies are doing subject tracking with in-store cameras and can use facial recognition to tell who you are, cash isn't going to be sufficient. They'll be able to build a pretty compelling shopping profile and can tie associate your cash purchases to your profile. Sure, it's not 100% fool-proof, but it doesn't need to be to be a massive privacy invasion. I suppose you could wear a mask, but that's generally frowned upon in stores.
  - OmarShehata 3y ago
    The industry is still struggling to track who's clicking on ads properly in all cases...we're very far from this idea of tracking cash purchases & building a profile with facial recognition. This sounds like science fiction. Are there any companies actually doing anything like this? Closest thing I know is companies who sell "foot traffic" data, of who walks in front of your store. But that's done with phones pinging wifi networks passively as you walk, not anything as fancy as facial recognition. Example: https://grapeseedmedia.com/blog/foot-traffic-data/ https://grapeseedmedia.com/blog/foot-traffic-data/
    - yomlica8 3y ago
      K-Mart apparently tracks with facial recognition. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-13/bunnings-kmart-investigated-over-facial-recognition-technology/101233372 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-13/bunnings-kmart-invest...