9 ms·

While I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it'll lead to them co

While I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it'll lead to them concentrating more power in the ad market. Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved. If you don't think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It's better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don't care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense. The following only makes sense if you buy this argument: The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it's not worth it. Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". The Chrome topics API and mathematical/statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies/data brokers. That being said, I don't love the concentration of power (that's why the DOJ is going after them) - I'd much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.

Nullabillity 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Ads are, at best, malware for the brain. What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.
JohnFen 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point. It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.
- jkubicek 3y ago
  > It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads. I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_. I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline. What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.
  - naniwaduni 3y ago
    You can have your restricted concerns, I'm going to keep taking issue with (a) data collected being data that can get accidental public backups, and (b) ads being an unwanted imposition on my attention.
    - jkubicek 3y ago
      The solution to both of those problems is to not use Instagram, which isn't a great solution, but at least it's possible. However, if Instagram is collecting browsing history and location data on me from some other source, it's hard/impossible for me to avoid.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Time to check Ad Topics in Chrome Settings to see what information advertisers are getting from me... Nope, nothing I wouldn't wouldn't share publicly. Just like every other time I checked. (I won't copy it all here since I'm on mobile, but otherwise I would. it's all very bland topics like "Online Communities.") It's technically targeted advertising, but only barely. I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I voluntary share much more information on the Internet. The key word here is "voluntarily". My objection is having data about me, my machines, or my use of my machines being collected without my consent. If I have given informed consent, there is no problem.
tristor 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying. As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not "psychological manipulation at scale?"
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    Do you believe all words are equally manipulative? That if we categorize speech by funding and intent, no category would be more manipulative than any other?
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say anything about magnitudes, just that communication is inherently manipulative.
      - regentbowerbird 3y ago
        > Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. "no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).
naniwaduni 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I don't think it's at all unreasonable not to accept this premise in the first place.
daft_pink 3y ago
If you look at how Google is approaching competing with companies like Apple on Android, or Firefox and Safari on Chrome. It's obvious that the overarching theme of the company is to copy all their security upgrades immediately and create watered down versions of the privacy technology, so they can appear to care about your privacy and compete, but their solutions simply aren't very good at protecting your privacy and there really isn't any good reason other than the truth that they want to appear to care about your privacy, while controlling and developing their technology in such a way that it doesn't protect your privacy as well as the competition or just gives only them access to the info, but protects it from others. Firefox and Safari blocked third party cookies ages ago. It's obvoius that we cannot just trust google to control important technologies the way we used to and need consider the competition if we care about privacy.
hk1337 3y ago
> Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". This often happens with government laws and policies too, in the U.S. Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?
- gretch 3y ago
  > Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them? I don't think this is a good argument, because the same argument can be used against technological advancement of any kind. For example with genetics research that addresses diseases - you can say "ah but even though the current government is responsible, who is to say that we won't get a bad govt in 20 years who will use this capability to use bioweapons that perform genocide". We shouldn't build factories, because the next generation can convert those factories into ones that make guns? No, we have to count on each generation of humans to be responsible. This worked for the last ~5000 years of civilization or so, and I think it's the way it has to keep working
mehlmao 3y ago
Why can't we have a system where you (and the vast majority that you're sure love targeted ads) can opt in to being tracked by Google and other companies, and everyone else is protected from invasive data collection by default?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  This would be ideal, yes.
eh_why_not 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad... then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it. Advertising has value in letting people know about your product. If you're selling locally, you rent a billboard on some street crossing, or a banner at a mall, or you buy a sponsorship at a local event because you think your target demographic will be there. At a demographic level, not individuals. On the Internet, geography translates to maybe using zipcode from an IP address, and demographics translates to choosing which websites ("publishers") to put ads on. And that should be it, that's fair and should get you enough bang for your buck. Putting cameras in people's homes, listening to their conversations, following them around in their cars, stalking their relationships, tracking their voting records, etc should not be an acceptable way of increasing the efficiency of the targeting. Of course you would make more money with this kind of spying (as what happens today). But this kind of invasion has great societal costs to privacy, and subsequently to freedoms, and should never be justifiable.
- gretch 3y ago
  > No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it. This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine. But it's also really dumb. Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup? I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl? There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads. Are those capabilities used 100% for good causes? of course not. But it at least does something for society, unlike a weird moral finger wagging.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    If targeting can be done without spying on people, then fine. But it's the spying that's the problem. Whether or not the data obtained without people's consent can be used for good purposes doesn't justify it.
  - eh_why_not 3y ago
marcosdumay 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad And you don't think that user-based targeting is bad. This is a huge parenthesis, that you forgot to put on the disclaimer. In fact, it's more important than what is there. Besides: > Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity Yes, they act as if they believe. What is either incredibly negligent or fraudulent.

Nullabillity 3y ago

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Ads are, at best, malware for the brain. What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.

JohnFen 3y ago

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point. It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.

jkubicek 3y ago
> It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads. I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_. I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline. What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.
- naniwaduni 3y ago
  You can have your restricted concerns, I'm going to keep taking issue with (a) data collected being data that can get accidental public backups, and (b) ads being an unwanted imposition on my attention.
  - jkubicek 3y ago
    The solution to both of those problems is to not use Instagram, which isn't a great solution, but at least it's possible. However, if Instagram is collecting browsing history and location data on me from some other source, it's hard/impossible for me to avoid.
skybrian 3y ago
Time to check Ad Topics in Chrome Settings to see what information advertisers are getting from me... Nope, nothing I wouldn't wouldn't share publicly. Just like every other time I checked. (I won't copy it all here since I'm on mobile, but otherwise I would. it's all very bland topics like "Online Communities.") It's technically targeted advertising, but only barely. I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I voluntary share much more information on the Internet. The key word here is "voluntarily". My objection is having data about me, my machines, or my use of my machines being collected without my consent. If I have given informed consent, there is no problem.

tristor 3y ago

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying. As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.

endisneigh 3y ago
Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not "psychological manipulation at scale?"
- SenAnder 3y ago
  Do you believe all words are equally manipulative? That if we categorize speech by funding and intent, no category would be more manipulative than any other?
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say anything about magnitudes, just that communication is inherently manipulative.
    - regentbowerbird 3y ago
      > Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. "no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).

naniwaduni 3y ago

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I don't think it's at all unreasonable not to accept this premise in the first place.

daft_pink 3y ago

If you look at how Google is approaching competing with companies like Apple on Android, or Firefox and Safari on Chrome. It's obvious that the overarching theme of the company is to copy all their security upgrades immediately and create watered down versions of the privacy technology, so they can appear to care about your privacy and compete, but their solutions simply aren't very good at protecting your privacy and there really isn't any good reason other than the truth that they want to appear to care about your privacy, while controlling and developing their technology in such a way that it doesn't protect your privacy as well as the competition or just gives only them access to the info, but protects it from others. Firefox and Safari blocked third party cookies ages ago. It's obvoius that we cannot just trust google to control important technologies the way we used to and need consider the competition if we care about privacy.

hk1337 3y ago

> Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". This often happens with government laws and policies too, in the U.S. Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?

gretch 3y ago
> Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them? I don't think this is a good argument, because the same argument can be used against technological advancement of any kind. For example with genetics research that addresses diseases - you can say "ah but even though the current government is responsible, who is to say that we won't get a bad govt in 20 years who will use this capability to use bioweapons that perform genocide". We shouldn't build factories, because the next generation can convert those factories into ones that make guns? No, we have to count on each generation of humans to be responsible. This worked for the last ~5000 years of civilization or so, and I think it's the way it has to keep working

mehlmao 3y ago

Why can't we have a system where you (and the vast majority that you're sure love targeted ads) can opt in to being tracked by Google and other companies, and everyone else is protected from invasive data collection by default?

JohnFen 3y ago
This would be ideal, yes.

eh_why_not 3y ago

> If you don't think that all ads are bad... then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it. Advertising has value in letting people know about your product. If you're selling locally, you rent a billboard on some street crossing, or a banner at a mall, or you buy a sponsorship at a local event because you think your target demographic will be there. At a demographic level, not individuals. On the Internet, geography translates to maybe using zipcode from an IP address, and demographics translates to choosing which websites ("publishers") to put ads on. And that should be it, that's fair and should get you enough bang for your buck. Putting cameras in people's homes, listening to their conversations, following them around in their cars, stalking their relationships, tracking their voting records, etc should not be an acceptable way of increasing the efficiency of the targeting. Of course you would make more money with this kind of spying (as what happens today). But this kind of invasion has great societal costs to privacy, and subsequently to freedoms, and should never be justifiable.

gretch 3y ago
> No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it. This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine. But it's also really dumb. Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup? I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl? There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads. Are those capabilities used 100% for good causes? of course not. But it at least does something for society, unlike a weird moral finger wagging.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  If targeting can be done without spying on people, then fine. But it's the spying that's the problem. Whether or not the data obtained without people's consent can be used for good purposes doesn't justify it.
- eh_why_not 3y ago

marcosdumay 3y ago

> If you don't think that all ads are bad And you don't think that user-based targeting is bad. This is a huge parenthesis, that you forgot to put on the disclaimer. In fact, it's more important than what is there. Besides: > Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity Yes, they act as if they believe. What is either incredibly negligent or fraudulent.