7 ms·

> I mean, if I am looking for a notebook, I rather have FB/IG (or Google or whatever), show me adds of a notebook that I might end up buying, instead of the gen

> I mean, if I am looking for a notebook, I rather have FB/IG (or Google or whatever), show me adds of a notebook that I might end up buying, instead of the generic poker/porn adds that we had on the beginning of the internet. That's all fine and dandy, I think. The problem starts to become a bit bigger when suddenly everyone in your household starts to see "chlamydia medication" ads everywhere they go online based on some message you sent a month ago to a friend. > It is almost impossible to have a free internet without ads. So on one side, people want everything free, on the other side, we don't want ads, so there is a clear problem here. I'm not sure that's so obvious as you make it seem. There are lots of long running websites that don't survive on personalized ads created based on behavioural profiles created by data harvesters.

konschubert 3y ago
We have no reason to assume that FB is using message content to target ads.
- thewaywego 3y ago
  its facebook....assuming anything but the worst handling of user data is beyond foolish
  - hdhianao 3y ago
    This comment actually is a symptom of another problem. If you ask a random person if big ad tech should collect personal data in exchange for providing social media for free with ads, they would say no. But then immideately they would also walk into a Walgreens/CVS (pharmacies in the US) and the first thing they are asked at the cashier counter is their phone number and almost everyone just provides it with no second thought. Of course they get some loyalty member discount or whatever, but I don't now why they assume big retailer isn't sellimg the data / going to sell their data in the future. Perhaps just comes down to PR. If big ad tech is so bad and can't be trusted, wonder why no one assumes Google maps could sell your driving/over-speeding data to insurance companies? It's almost like we are told company a, b, c are bad, we haven't put more thought into it and are rejoiced seeing any negative headline about them. Nothing beyond.
    - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
      In fact they've been doing it for over a decade https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  That's not the point, it's not even necessary to use message content. All it takes is the other person looking up the subject somewhere. It's the same with devices supposedly listening in on conversations, there are far simpler and cheaper ways for advertisers to get the same data.
- CyanBird 3y ago
  Op said "sent a message to a friend", it made no reference to facebook Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds Ought be noted that while WhatsApp to my knowledgeable doesn't carry such a clause. It would be idiotic beyond belief to be led to believe that Facebook doesn't do the exact same thing
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds They don't: "We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads" https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en#:~:text=The%20process%20of%20selecting%20and,messages%20to%20show%20you%20ads https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en#:~:text=Th.... Do you have evidence that they do? I think Google said they did this a long time ago, but they stopped since email content didn't actually improve revenue on those ads. Message data just isn't very helpful for ads, they would do it if it was useful but it isn't so they don't.
  - sib 3y ago
    >> Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds Please stop repeating falsehoods.
- bsenftner 3y ago
  You have every reason to believe FB uses message content to build and enhance your internal FB Profile, which is where ad targeting originates. To believe otherwise is just being gullible. If there is a profit enhancing mechanism lying on the floor, it will be picked up.
gatinsama 3y ago
It's not just that someone else will know that you have chlamydia, it's that they have your data and you don't know what they will do with it. We don't know what they can do and there could be more serious stuff.
- kwanbix 3y ago
  What do you think they can do?
  - GrinningFool 3y ago
    Get hacked, phished, or otherwise expose the data to the world. Personal data should be toxic with high potential liability costs. This would naturally cause companies to limit their data retention and use.
  - mcv 3y ago
    Sell it. Health insurance companies are always interested in more details about your health so they can adjust your premium accordingly. Or use it for excuses to deny coverage.
    - kwanbix 3y ago
      So what you need to do is regulate what they can do with the data, not forbid personalized ads. By the way, here in Europe we have universal healthcare, maybe is something the US should consider?
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Is there any good reason not to both legally protect privacy and ban the largest part of the market for the invasively collected data (which seems to me to fall nearly under regulating what can be done with the data)?
        kwanbix 3y ago
        Are you willing to pay for all internet websites then?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chipgap98 3y ago
Great so regulate personalization around certain types of products like medication and medical treatment. I don't understand how this scenario explains why we should throw out this whole category of business.
- capableweb 3y ago
  The "category of business" they are going after is businesses that harvest users personal data without their full consent. Is that a category of business you think should still exists?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Why should the EU limit itself to regulating personalization around healthcare matters instead of regulating all personalization generally? The "whole category of business" doesn't have a right to exist, and the EU has the right to regulate it out of existence. And why shouldn't they? Because it would be bad for your employer or your stock portfolio?

konschubert 3y ago

We have no reason to assume that FB is using message content to target ads.

thewaywego 3y ago
its facebook....assuming anything but the worst handling of user data is beyond foolish
- hdhianao 3y ago
  This comment actually is a symptom of another problem. If you ask a random person if big ad tech should collect personal data in exchange for providing social media for free with ads, they would say no. But then immideately they would also walk into a Walgreens/CVS (pharmacies in the US) and the first thing they are asked at the cashier counter is their phone number and almost everyone just provides it with no second thought. Of course they get some loyalty member discount or whatever, but I don't now why they assume big retailer isn't sellimg the data / going to sell their data in the future. Perhaps just comes down to PR. If big ad tech is so bad and can't be trusted, wonder why no one assumes Google maps could sell your driving/over-speeding data to insurance companies? It's almost like we are told company a, b, c are bad, we haven't put more thought into it and are rejoiced seeing any negative headline about them. Nothing beyond.
  - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
    In fact they've been doing it for over a decade https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
dontlaugh 3y ago
That's not the point, it's not even necessary to use message content. All it takes is the other person looking up the subject somewhere. It's the same with devices supposedly listening in on conversations, there are far simpler and cheaper ways for advertisers to get the same data.
CyanBird 3y ago
Op said "sent a message to a friend", it made no reference to facebook Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds Ought be noted that while WhatsApp to my knowledgeable doesn't carry such a clause. It would be idiotic beyond belief to be led to believe that Facebook doesn't do the exact same thing
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds They don't: "We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads" https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en#:~:text=The%20process%20of%20selecting%20and,messages%20to%20show%20you%20ads https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en#:~:text=Th.... Do you have evidence that they do? I think Google said they did this a long time ago, but they stopped since email content didn't actually improve revenue on those ads. Message data just isn't very helpful for ads, they would do it if it was useful but it isn't so they don't.
- sib 3y ago
  >> Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds Please stop repeating falsehoods.
bsenftner 3y ago
You have every reason to believe FB uses message content to build and enhance your internal FB Profile, which is where ad targeting originates. To believe otherwise is just being gullible. If there is a profit enhancing mechanism lying on the floor, it will be picked up.

gatinsama 3y ago

It's not just that someone else will know that you have chlamydia, it's that they have your data and you don't know what they will do with it. We don't know what they can do and there could be more serious stuff.

kwanbix 3y ago
What do you think they can do?
- GrinningFool 3y ago
  Get hacked, phished, or otherwise expose the data to the world. Personal data should be toxic with high potential liability costs. This would naturally cause companies to limit their data retention and use.
- mcv 3y ago
  Sell it. Health insurance companies are always interested in more details about your health so they can adjust your premium accordingly. Or use it for excuses to deny coverage.
  - kwanbix 3y ago
    So what you need to do is regulate what they can do with the data, not forbid personalized ads. By the way, here in Europe we have universal healthcare, maybe is something the US should consider?
    - thfuran 3y ago
      Is there any good reason not to both legally protect privacy and ban the largest part of the market for the invasively collected data (which seems to me to fall nearly under regulating what can be done with the data)?
      - kwanbix 3y ago
        Are you willing to pay for all internet websites then?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chipgap98 3y ago

Great so regulate personalization around certain types of products like medication and medical treatment. I don't understand how this scenario explains why we should throw out this whole category of business.

capableweb 3y ago
The "category of business" they are going after is businesses that harvest users personal data without their full consent. Is that a category of business you think should still exists?
mcpackieh 3y ago
Why should the EU limit itself to regulating personalization around healthcare matters instead of regulating all personalization generally? The "whole category of business" doesn't have a right to exist, and the EU has the right to regulate it out of existence. And why shouldn't they? Because it would be bad for your employer or your stock portfolio?