3 ms·

I don't buy that "constant surveillance" from big tech is a harm, I think it's dramatized language for something quite banal. Which is why I want to see actual

by cm2012 3y ago

I don't buy that "constant surveillance" from big tech is a harm, I think it's dramatized language for something quite banal. Which is why I want to see actual harms before being against it! There are many benefits to society from effective advertising.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
I fail to see how these statements are dissimilar with regard to specific examples. > I would argue that just being under constant surveillance is, itself, a harm. > There are many benefits to society from effective advertising. It's not difficult for me to imagine abuses that could possibly occur given constant surveillance similar to how it's not difficult for me to imagine benefits that could possibly arise with targeted advertising. But since we're not imagining and are instead providing examples: what are some actual benefits to targeted advertising? What benefit(s) should I expect to see from this targeting and where can I go to see this benefit?
- cm2012 3y ago
  With no targeted advertising: 1) you will still get ads, it's just lowest common denominator teeth whitening and weight loss that anybody can buy. 2) it would be much harder to subsidize entertainment that relies on ads. 3) New and emerging businesses rely on ads much more than category leaders to be heard of. Worse ads means a more powerful incumbent advantage.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Thank you. I think your question can be similarly answered. With constant surveillance: 1) individuals are incentivized to avoid expressing themselves in ways which their overseers dislike, especially if an expression draws punitive measures; 2) a particularly vulnerable person could be worried about being extorted with information that's discovered about them causing some pervasive increase in stress; 3) otherwise innocuous information about a person might indicate a Bad Thing which is only considered Bad well after the fact but might still be used against them in some social setting.

by cm2012 3y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

I fail to see how these statements are dissimilar with regard to specific examples. > I would argue that just being under constant surveillance is, itself, a harm. > There are many benefits to society from effective advertising. It's not difficult for me to imagine abuses that could possibly occur given constant surveillance similar to how it's not difficult for me to imagine benefits that could possibly arise with targeted advertising. But since we're not imagining and are instead providing examples: what are some actual benefits to targeted advertising? What benefit(s) should I expect to see from this targeting and where can I go to see this benefit?

cm2012 3y ago
With no targeted advertising: 1) you will still get ads, it's just lowest common denominator teeth whitening and weight loss that anybody can buy. 2) it would be much harder to subsidize entertainment that relies on ads. 3) New and emerging businesses rely on ads much more than category leaders to be heard of. Worse ads means a more powerful incumbent advantage.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Thank you. I think your question can be similarly answered. With constant surveillance: 1) individuals are incentivized to avoid expressing themselves in ways which their overseers dislike, especially if an expression draws punitive measures; 2) a particularly vulnerable person could be worried about being extorted with information that's discovered about them causing some pervasive increase in stress; 3) otherwise innocuous information about a person might indicate a Bad Thing which is only considered Bad well after the fact but might still be used against them in some social setting.