7 ms·

"Such extensive data collection allows the profiling of users in order to show them personalized ads and marketing campaigns to increase the revenue for the men

by air7 3y ago

"Such extensive data collection allows the profiling of users in order to show them personalized ads and marketing campaigns to increase the revenue for the mentioned companies." On a bit of a philosophical tangent: Targeted ads increase revenues because they are focused on people with a higher proabability of responding positively to the ads. If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. But by treating this negatively you are asuming that the user has no agency over their actions. They reply to the ad, but it hurts them or they don't really want to. And we should protect users from this "temptation". This is the line of reasoning behind banning the sale of addictive substances to minors. Note that I am not talking about privacy issues, only about the quoted reservation which is quite common.

noja 3y ago
What? You are seriously arguing that the illegal and consent-less selling of people's data is a win-win?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
partitioned 3y ago
I don’t think anyone cares about this as an “issue”. The issue is privacy. The statement you’re quoting is their motivation to do so.
sixstringtheory 3y ago
It’s not as simple as the dichotomy you’ve presented. I exercise all the agency I can summon to avoid seeing ads, yet still I am presented with them and tracked so that companies can present them to me. If I had the choice I would deny them any ability to track me. So, don’t I lack some agency here? Is it my fault? And if I see an image or text I am not prepared for, my lower perceptual faculties process it before my prefrontal cortex can reason about it. Advertisers and psychologists know this, it’s why they keep doing what they do, because it works.
reb 3y ago
I think you might appreciate this article (if you haven’t seen it already): https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/ https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/
- analog31 3y ago
  The article suggests that advertising works by manipulating cultural norms, but then it would not seem to work if ads were targeted to individuals and not to the population as a whole. For instance, the cited ad (Corona beer at the beach) was in fact widely distributed without individual targeting. Also, the fact that misinformation campaigns work suggests that misinformation is at least one possible purpose of advertising.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    I'd say the article is more about non-targeted ads, but nitpicking the example doesn't really help. An ad can target an individual about their dandruff issue which only works because previously the non-targeted ads created social stigma around it. It's all connected. Ads are fucking evil. No amount of rationalization can get around that. The only reason we even attempt to normalize this is because we have to generate profits at all costs. I'd argue misinformation is embedded into advertising. There's a reason "honest ads" are a meme. Aside from a few exceptions, misinformation is the entire point of the ad: buy my thing because it's the best (it isn't) and will solve all your problems (it won't) and if you don't you're a loser (you aren't).
  - passion__desire 3y ago
    > manipulating cultural norms. The following strategy employed by producer fits the bill. https://www.engadget.com/2019-08-09-netflix-algorithm-facebook-ads-norsemen.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-08-09-netflix-algorithm-facebo... 'Norsemen' producer gamed Netflix's algorithm with Facebook ads He was pretty sure Minnesota residents would dig the Viking comedy.
Larrikin 3y ago
How do I get my time back when I see an ad for something I don't want to buy? Can I get the profit from the ad when it wastes time off my life? If not, fuck them. I'll do everything I can to block ads and poison their data on me.
Ensorceled 3y ago
> On a bit of a philosophical tangent: My PHIL101 prof is rolling in his grave right now. "Actually, spying on people is a good thing since blocking the spying is robbing them of agency. I thought you people liked having agency?!?1"
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  "Have you considered that by making mugging illegal you are robbing people of the option of defending themselves?"
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Another philosophical tangent: we should protect humans from advertising on principle. Our minds are sacred, our cognitive functions are inalienable. Not a single corporation on this planet is entitled to this. Our attention belongs to us. It's not currency to pay for services with. It's not a commodity for them to sell to the highest bidder. They don't get to insert their brands into our brains without our consent. That should be considered mind rape and any measures taken to stop it should be considered legitimate self-defense.
- passion__desire 3y ago
  Side note : I consider adverstising to be like a friend's recommendation if the options are curated, researched and non-scammy. If you have nothing against influencer economy, you should have nothing against advertising. I just want ads to be done ethically.
  - Rygian 3y ago
    My (actual) friends have never spent a single dime in recommending a product to me, and they never talk about products where they have a personal stake. So I can't relate to your perception. Advertisers spend money with the aim of convincing strangers. There is always a conflict of interest.
    - passion__desire 3y ago
      Ads have suggested lot of life improvement products for me i.e. better bedsheets, duvets, aromatherapy products, etc. I love those. I would have never checked those out. After trying them, I have suggested them to my friends. Lot of minor improvements. Here's the thesis, if we consider youtube recommendations and instagram recommendations to be so good that they are addictive, the same can be said about ad recommendations. Buy-conversions track whether the product has been effective and could be recommended to similar demographics. People have no problem choosing life-partners based on how algos recommends profiles on dating apps but they have issue with ads. They want this particular aspect to be "organic" what a irony.
footy 3y ago
It's not about temptation. It's about not wanting to see ads. I don't care to know about what the ad people want to show me, and I resent being shown ads at all. If I want a product I'll search for it. I don't want things coming to me, I want to go to them.
piva00 3y ago
> If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. But by treating this negatively you are asuming that the user has no agency over their actions. Some people don't have complete and absolute agency, impulsive buying is a known issue. I bring this up because I have to constantly monitor my impulsivity due to ADHD, it creates a struggle when targeted ads bombard me with interesting stuff that I don't need but my brain tells me "but it could be useful for X". It's exhausting, I don't want it (or at least would like to have more control over) but I can't shield myself completely from targeted ads, ad blockers on the web help a lot, and I should completely avoid popular apps with targeted ads like Instagram. I would like to see what my close friends are up to on their Instagram Stories but I simply shouldn't use it as I normally get bombarded by "interesting" ads all the time which drains me by constantly battling impulsivity.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I too have ADHD and I too find it extremely exhausting and disrespectful. I know how you feel.
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
Used to feel similarly, and extrapolated this sentiment to drugs, gambling, and other vices. Quite a grim realization, but without the shaming, the banning, the control, people will allow "their agency" to take them places that only cause them and others harm. This is why law, shaming, and religion are important, because they are strong forces that protect people from "their agency", and the ills it can cause. Who has more agency, who is more free here: a man who is a drug addict or a man who isn't a drug addict but otherwise would be without drug laws and shaming? You may say the drug addict has more agency. You might be right, but it's not good for him or his family, and that's where law and shame come in to protect him from "ill-agency". >This is the line of reasoning behind banning the sale of addictive substances to minors Yes.
Draiken 3y ago
We're rationalizing manipulating people to extract more profit out of them. Can we all agree this is insane or am I going insane? I simply cannot rationalize this. It's gross.
- cj 3y ago
  > I simply cannot rationalize this. Without ads, how are companies supposed to get the word out about their product? Email seems like a worse medium. Calls / texts even worse. Blog spam / SEO content is maybe the least worst? Paid (biased) reviews? Without ads, we'd probably see a lot more paid placements (which might not be labeled as an advertisement, similar to food companies buying prime shelf space in supermarkets unbeknownst to shoppers). More influencers pushing brands directly to audiences (another form of paid placements). I won't argue that ads are a good thing, but they serve a role in the economy. It's not obvious to me what would happen if companies suddenly couldn't advertise anymore. E.g. you open a new restaurant. Is it ok for a restaurant to geotarget ads to the local residents? Buy an ad in the newspaper? Or do we say "not allowed" and rely on word of mouth?
  - Draiken 3y ago
    If that was what advertisement was all about, maybe we wouldn't care so much. But in the majority of cases those advertisements are lies. Fake photos, fake reviews, fake claims, fake everything. I can't justify accepting all that lying just to "get your word out". That's not what's being done. Paid placements are already ubiquitous. The restaurant example is all about the small company, which already gets screwed with current marketing landscape. They put tons of money into a black box with Google/Meta Ads hoping it'll work. They say X amount of people saw your ad, most of the times you can't track any real effect from these ads, and you have to accept it. The recent issues with YouTube counting ads incorrectly is most certainly not a unique incident and we have no clue what's actually happening. Maybe if all we had were these small local businesses advertising it could actually be useful. After all, those are not the ones collecting copious amounts of data violating everyone's privacy for the sole purpose of selling ads. Perhaps a version of opt-in ads or trustworthy places where you can get real recommendations are the way to go. But because of ads and SEO now this was also destroyed. I find it infuriating that when you do want to buy something, you have to sift through so many garbage lists created for the sole purpose of showing ads and referrals. Ultimately you can only really trust a few experts sources for basically anything. The normal folks who fall for the "top X" list websites or the ads get screwed the same way because those are just another form of false advertisement. I don't know if there's a perfect solution here, but it damn well isn't the one we've got.
hammock 3y ago
>Targeted ads increase revenues because they are focused on people with a higher proabability of responding positively to the ads. If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. But by treating this negatively you are asuming that the user has no agency over their actions. That's hand-wavy and not entirely true. I have full agency and still it's easier to ignore or mentally block out an ad about cattle supplements (I don't own cattle) than it is an ad about an accounting conference (I need continuing education credits for my CPA). Ads are interruptive by design. The more targeted an ad is, the more it slows me down in my day. That is bad for me
user3939382 3y ago
Hey can I have 20 bucks? No? Ok. Would it be okay if I ask you that another 10 to 20 times today while you’re in the middle of other things? Advertising sucks.
eps 3y ago
Ads are the problem not for those who click on ads and feel excellent about it, but for those who don't and get unwanted content shoved down their throats. If the "higher probablity" from your comment is tiny, which it is, then the latter group is roughly the same as that exposed to generic (and equally unwanted) ads. That is, profiling does very little for the vast majority users, but at a cost of massive privacy issues. Trying to look at one without considering the other is disingenuous at best.
bt4u 3y ago
[dead]
afiori 3y ago
Except that it turns out that the most valuable eyes are of children with access to their parents' credit cards. I would have a slightly better opinion of targetted ads if you could see how each ad you see was targeted.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  It would scare the shit out of you ... "You are seeing this ad on ShittySite.com because you clicked on an article about new cars on NewsSite.com 13 days ago and searched for 'Tesla' 10 days ago and subscribed to the 'Car Buyers' newsletter 8 days ago and viewed a video about used cars 7 days ago and ..."
  - afiori 3y ago
    Scary things exist, knowing them does not make them more real but allows me to react
afiori 3y ago
I have a different opinion on behavioural tracking: in most cases and contexts human behaviour is very low entropy; each person is unique and so on but we are also quite predictable and malleable and in many situation we collapse into far fewer modalities of behaviour. By gathering enough data it become possible to predict more and more of our individual behaviour; I believe that keeping this as hard as possible is a noble cause.
osmarks 3y ago
We do not have "agency" in the sense of a magic black box which makes optimal decisions regardless of the information we have, nor "no agency" in the sense that we'll immediately do anything because ads tell us to, but ads are incentivized to exploit human psychology as much as possible and being exposed to that is probably bad.
johannes1234321 3y ago
> If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. I think a relevant difference is between "intent" related ads, say keyword ads on Google: I search for a thing and get the related info. There are cases where this is okay and helps to discover things. And the pure tracking based ads, trying to influence me to do things I didn't inherently plan to do. I heavily dislike the life manipulation, which often enough also seems to work. (As proven by bug companies spending tons of money on ads) Or in a different realm: I'm fine with political parties having room to share their ideas and goals and advertise for them, but if companies use targeted ads to send very specific ads to different demographics, there can't be a proper debate anymore as everybody saw something different (maybe even contradicting) and don't know where others are becoming from (see Cambridge Analytica) This is absolutely harmful for society.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jkubicek 3y ago
> Targeted ads increase revenues because they are focused on people with a higher proabability of responding positively to the ads. I have no problem with targeted ads, in fact I prefer them. If I'm browsing a climbing subreddit, show me ads for climbing gear. If I'm searching for luggage online, show me ads for suitcases. What I strenuously object to is sharing data outside of a specific vendor. If I'm browsing for suitcases on eaglecreek.com, Google and Facebook should never know and never be able to serve me any ads based on something I did outside of their services.
whoopdedo 3y ago
What agency does a lone sheep have against a pack of wolves? The issue is information asymmetry. The corporations have many more resources available to convince me to buy their product than I have when deciding how to spend my money. When I'm asked for permission to "share data with a third-party" I want to know who that third-party is? Will it be the same tomorrow as it is today? What will the third-party do with the PII? If the third-party is someone I trust and would value a working with then I might agree to it. But it's just as likely to be an organization I detest. The information is out there in press releases, journals, and legal documents. But collecting, compiling, and cross-referencing isn't something that can be done on the spot when that consent prompt is displayed. How am I supposed to make an informed decision on how to answer? Restricting what advertisers can do isn't taking agency away from me. It's giving me the support to better exercise my choice against better armed adversaries.

by air7 3y ago

noja 3y ago

What? You are seriously arguing that the illegal and consent-less selling of people's data is a win-win?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

partitioned 3y ago

I don’t think anyone cares about this as an “issue”. The issue is privacy. The statement you’re quoting is their motivation to do so.

sixstringtheory 3y ago

It’s not as simple as the dichotomy you’ve presented. I exercise all the agency I can summon to avoid seeing ads, yet still I am presented with them and tracked so that companies can present them to me. If I had the choice I would deny them any ability to track me. So, don’t I lack some agency here? Is it my fault? And if I see an image or text I am not prepared for, my lower perceptual faculties process it before my prefrontal cortex can reason about it. Advertisers and psychologists know this, it’s why they keep doing what they do, because it works.

reb 3y ago

I think you might appreciate this article (if you haven’t seen it already): https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/ https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/

analog31 3y ago
The article suggests that advertising works by manipulating cultural norms, but then it would not seem to work if ads were targeted to individuals and not to the population as a whole. For instance, the cited ad (Corona beer at the beach) was in fact widely distributed without individual targeting. Also, the fact that misinformation campaigns work suggests that misinformation is at least one possible purpose of advertising.
- Draiken 3y ago
  I'd say the article is more about non-targeted ads, but nitpicking the example doesn't really help. An ad can target an individual about their dandruff issue which only works because previously the non-targeted ads created social stigma around it. It's all connected. Ads are fucking evil. No amount of rationalization can get around that. The only reason we even attempt to normalize this is because we have to generate profits at all costs. I'd argue misinformation is embedded into advertising. There's a reason "honest ads" are a meme. Aside from a few exceptions, misinformation is the entire point of the ad: buy my thing because it's the best (it isn't) and will solve all your problems (it won't) and if you don't you're a loser (you aren't).
- passion__desire 3y ago
  > manipulating cultural norms. The following strategy employed by producer fits the bill. https://www.engadget.com/2019-08-09-netflix-algorithm-facebook-ads-norsemen.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-08-09-netflix-algorithm-facebo... 'Norsemen' producer gamed Netflix's algorithm with Facebook ads He was pretty sure Minnesota residents would dig the Viking comedy.

Larrikin 3y ago

How do I get my time back when I see an ad for something I don't want to buy? Can I get the profit from the ad when it wastes time off my life? If not, fuck them. I'll do everything I can to block ads and poison their data on me.

Ensorceled 3y ago

> On a bit of a philosophical tangent: My PHIL101 prof is rolling in his grave right now. "Actually, spying on people is a good thing since blocking the spying is robbing them of agency. I thought you people liked having agency?!?1"

polygamous_bat 3y ago
"Have you considered that by making mugging illegal you are robbing people of the option of defending themselves?"

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Another philosophical tangent: we should protect humans from advertising on principle. Our minds are sacred, our cognitive functions are inalienable. Not a single corporation on this planet is entitled to this. Our attention belongs to us. It's not currency to pay for services with. It's not a commodity for them to sell to the highest bidder. They don't get to insert their brands into our brains without our consent. That should be considered mind rape and any measures taken to stop it should be considered legitimate self-defense.

passion__desire 3y ago
Side note : I consider adverstising to be like a friend's recommendation if the options are curated, researched and non-scammy. If you have nothing against influencer economy, you should have nothing against advertising. I just want ads to be done ethically.
- Rygian 3y ago
  My (actual) friends have never spent a single dime in recommending a product to me, and they never talk about products where they have a personal stake. So I can't relate to your perception. Advertisers spend money with the aim of convincing strangers. There is always a conflict of interest.
  - passion__desire 3y ago
    Ads have suggested lot of life improvement products for me i.e. better bedsheets, duvets, aromatherapy products, etc. I love those. I would have never checked those out. After trying them, I have suggested them to my friends. Lot of minor improvements. Here's the thesis, if we consider youtube recommendations and instagram recommendations to be so good that they are addictive, the same can be said about ad recommendations. Buy-conversions track whether the product has been effective and could be recommended to similar demographics. People have no problem choosing life-partners based on how algos recommends profiles on dating apps but they have issue with ads. They want this particular aspect to be "organic" what a irony.

footy 3y ago

It's not about temptation. It's about not wanting to see ads. I don't care to know about what the ad people want to show me, and I resent being shown ads at all. If I want a product I'll search for it. I don't want things coming to me, I want to go to them.

piva00 3y ago

> If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. But by treating this negatively you are asuming that the user has no agency over their actions. Some people don't have complete and absolute agency, impulsive buying is a known issue. I bring this up because I have to constantly monitor my impulsivity due to ADHD, it creates a struggle when targeted ads bombard me with interesting stuff that I don't need but my brain tells me "but it could be useful for X". It's exhausting, I don't want it (or at least would like to have more control over) but I can't shield myself completely from targeted ads, ad blockers on the web help a lot, and I should completely avoid popular apps with targeted ads like Instagram. I would like to see what my close friends are up to on their Instagram Stories but I simply shouldn't use it as I normally get bombarded by "interesting" ads all the time which drains me by constantly battling impulsivity.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
I too have ADHD and I too find it extremely exhausting and disrespectful. I know how you feel.

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

Used to feel similarly, and extrapolated this sentiment to drugs, gambling, and other vices. Quite a grim realization, but without the shaming, the banning, the control, people will allow "their agency" to take them places that only cause them and others harm. This is why law, shaming, and religion are important, because they are strong forces that protect people from "their agency", and the ills it can cause. Who has more agency, who is more free here: a man who is a drug addict or a man who isn't a drug addict but otherwise would be without drug laws and shaming? You may say the drug addict has more agency. You might be right, but it's not good for him or his family, and that's where law and shame come in to protect him from "ill-agency". >This is the line of reasoning behind banning the sale of addictive substances to minors Yes.

Draiken 3y ago

We're rationalizing manipulating people to extract more profit out of them. Can we all agree this is insane or am I going insane? I simply cannot rationalize this. It's gross.

cj 3y ago
> I simply cannot rationalize this. Without ads, how are companies supposed to get the word out about their product? Email seems like a worse medium. Calls / texts even worse. Blog spam / SEO content is maybe the least worst? Paid (biased) reviews? Without ads, we'd probably see a lot more paid placements (which might not be labeled as an advertisement, similar to food companies buying prime shelf space in supermarkets unbeknownst to shoppers). More influencers pushing brands directly to audiences (another form of paid placements). I won't argue that ads are a good thing, but they serve a role in the economy. It's not obvious to me what would happen if companies suddenly couldn't advertise anymore. E.g. you open a new restaurant. Is it ok for a restaurant to geotarget ads to the local residents? Buy an ad in the newspaper? Or do we say "not allowed" and rely on word of mouth?
- Draiken 3y ago
  If that was what advertisement was all about, maybe we wouldn't care so much. But in the majority of cases those advertisements are lies. Fake photos, fake reviews, fake claims, fake everything. I can't justify accepting all that lying just to "get your word out". That's not what's being done. Paid placements are already ubiquitous. The restaurant example is all about the small company, which already gets screwed with current marketing landscape. They put tons of money into a black box with Google/Meta Ads hoping it'll work. They say X amount of people saw your ad, most of the times you can't track any real effect from these ads, and you have to accept it. The recent issues with YouTube counting ads incorrectly is most certainly not a unique incident and we have no clue what's actually happening. Maybe if all we had were these small local businesses advertising it could actually be useful. After all, those are not the ones collecting copious amounts of data violating everyone's privacy for the sole purpose of selling ads. Perhaps a version of opt-in ads or trustworthy places where you can get real recommendations are the way to go. But because of ads and SEO now this was also destroyed. I find it infuriating that when you do want to buy something, you have to sift through so many garbage lists created for the sole purpose of showing ads and referrals. Ultimately you can only really trust a few experts sources for basically anything. The normal folks who fall for the "top X" list websites or the ads get screwed the same way because those are just another form of false advertisement. I don't know if there's a perfect solution here, but it damn well isn't the one we've got.

hammock 3y ago

>Targeted ads increase revenues because they are focused on people with a higher proabability of responding positively to the ads. If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. But by treating this negatively you are asuming that the user has no agency over their actions. That's hand-wavy and not entirely true. I have full agency and still it's easier to ignore or mentally block out an ad about cattle supplements (I don't own cattle) than it is an ad about an accounting conference (I need continuing education credits for my CPA). Ads are interruptive by design. The more targeted an ad is, the more it slows me down in my day. That is bad for me

user3939382 3y ago

Hey can I have 20 bucks? No? Ok. Would it be okay if I ask you that another 10 to 20 times today while you’re in the middle of other things? Advertising sucks.

eps 3y ago

Ads are the problem not for those who click on ads and feel excellent about it, but for those who don't and get unwanted content shoved down their throats. If the "higher probablity" from your comment is tiny, which it is, then the latter group is roughly the same as that exposed to generic (and equally unwanted) ads. That is, profiling does very little for the vast majority users, but at a cost of massive privacy issues. Trying to look at one without considering the other is disingenuous at best.

bt4u 3y ago

[dead]

afiori 3y ago

Except that it turns out that the most valuable eyes are of children with access to their parents' credit cards. I would have a slightly better opinion of targetted ads if you could see how each ad you see was targeted.

Ensorceled 3y ago
It would scare the shit out of you ... "You are seeing this ad on ShittySite.com because you clicked on an article about new cars on NewsSite.com 13 days ago and searched for 'Tesla' 10 days ago and subscribed to the 'Car Buyers' newsletter 8 days ago and viewed a video about used cars 7 days ago and ..."
- afiori 3y ago
  Scary things exist, knowing them does not make them more real but allows me to react

afiori 3y ago

I have a different opinion on behavioural tracking: in most cases and contexts human behaviour is very low entropy; each person is unique and so on but we are also quite predictable and malleable and in many situation we collapse into far fewer modalities of behaviour. By gathering enough data it become possible to predict more and more of our individual behaviour; I believe that keeping this as hard as possible is a noble cause.

osmarks 3y ago

We do not have "agency" in the sense of a magic black box which makes optimal decisions regardless of the information we have, nor "no agency" in the sense that we'll immediately do anything because ads tell us to, but ads are incentivized to exploit human psychology as much as possible and being exposed to that is probably bad.

johannes1234321 3y ago

> If you asume agency of the user then this is a good thing, a win-win. I think a relevant difference is between "intent" related ads, say keyword ads on Google: I search for a thing and get the related info. There are cases where this is okay and helps to discover things. And the pure tracking based ads, trying to influence me to do things I didn't inherently plan to do. I heavily dislike the life manipulation, which often enough also seems to work. (As proven by bug companies spending tons of money on ads) Or in a different realm: I'm fine with political parties having room to share their ideas and goals and advertise for them, but if companies use targeted ads to send very specific ads to different demographics, there can't be a proper debate anymore as everybody saw something different (maybe even contradicting) and don't know where others are becoming from (see Cambridge Analytica) This is absolutely harmful for society.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jkubicek 3y ago

> Targeted ads increase revenues because they are focused on people with a higher proabability of responding positively to the ads. I have no problem with targeted ads, in fact I prefer them. If I'm browsing a climbing subreddit, show me ads for climbing gear. If I'm searching for luggage online, show me ads for suitcases. What I strenuously object to is sharing data outside of a specific vendor. If I'm browsing for suitcases on eaglecreek.com, Google and Facebook should never know and never be able to serve me any ads based on something I did outside of their services.

whoopdedo 3y ago

What agency does a lone sheep have against a pack of wolves? The issue is information asymmetry. The corporations have many more resources available to convince me to buy their product than I have when deciding how to spend my money. When I'm asked for permission to "share data with a third-party" I want to know who that third-party is? Will it be the same tomorrow as it is today? What will the third-party do with the PII? If the third-party is someone I trust and would value a working with then I might agree to it. But it's just as likely to be an organization I detest. The information is out there in press releases, journals, and legal documents. But collecting, compiling, and cross-referencing isn't something that can be done on the spot when that consent prompt is displayed. How am I supposed to make an informed decision on how to answer? Restricting what advertisers can do isn't taking agency away from me. It's giving me the support to better exercise my choice against better armed adversaries.