4 ms·

> the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. I totally agree with this. But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?

> the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. I totally agree with this. But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Especially in a "democracy," when the people have implicitly given approval for this by voting in the people who are attempting to consolidate power?

fsflover 3y ago
> But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? Yes: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 Facebook collecting people's data even when accounts are deactivated (digiday.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 Facebook test asks users if they're worried a friend is 'becoming an extremist' (cnn.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
- hartator 3y ago
  All of this are far from material harms. Compared to what governments can do and are doing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kibwen 3y ago
    Not only is Facebook a tool of oppressive governments, Facebook's own annual revenue is larger than the GDP of 2/3 of the countries in the world. I don't understand why people have this blind spot when it comes to giving corporations a pass on things that they'd criticize a government for. Most corporations are expressly authoritarian organizations, more so than many governments. Neither Facebook users nor Facebook employees can vote Zuckerberg out.
    - hartator 3y ago
      Still I haven't heard about Facebook killing anyone.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Thorrez 3y ago
  The 1st and 3rd link don't seem related to ads. The 4th link isn't loading for me, so I can't tell if it's related to ads. It's not clear to me that the 2nd link will be impacted by this new EU regulation.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Personalized ads means personalized tracking. The consequences are my links.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      Removing the ads doesn't remove the personalized tracking AFAIK. The personalized tracking remains AFAIK. And what's the definition of tracking? It's not clear to me if links 1,3,4 are related to personalized tracking. For example, is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking?
      - fsflover 3y ago
        The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. Tracking is defined in GDPR as storing personal information without consent or necessity. > is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking? Yes, if I did not give consent to create a profile on me.
        Thorrez 3y ago
        >The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. That's not how I interpreted the conversation. The article says: >a ban imposed by non-EU member Norway on "behavioural advertising" on Facebook and Instagram That seems to be banning tracking for ads, but tracking for timeline suggestions and friend suggestions would still be allowed. And the comment I replied to seemed to be about ads: >>But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?
vharuck 3y ago
>And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Elections and courts. Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. When a company says, "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind. But you can sue the government for damages.
- chroma 3y ago
  > Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. They can’t go into my home without my permission and search my stuff. And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. If I don’t want to deal with a government, I have to emigrate and renounce my citizenship.
  - mportela 3y ago
    > Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. But they used to, once upon a time, until they were limited from doing so. > And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. Except when you can't. There's no "stop interacting" for a bunch of things in today's society. Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products. If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance.
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      > Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products > If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance. Use cash, homestead, etc. Yes - you can, in fact, stop any data going to credit rating agencies. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop being of interest to one or another level of government in US, while living in the US. I know it's a radical example, but your statement is false.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  > the government is very restricted in what it can do The government is no more or less restricted than a corporation. > "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind You can, you can sue for breach of contract. If the government tomorrow gets a law passed that they can share or institute a sharing system(like Five Eyes) - you literally can't even sue over anything. > But you can sue the government for damages. That's absolutely not true. In government individuals carry more responsibility than "government". German government can fail to protect your tax data tomorrow and you'll have no way to sue them. You'll be pointed to the individual who'll be blamed and may even go to prison. But you'll get FA. You have way more chances in winning a lawsuit against a corporation, than "a government".(barring some exceptions)

fsflover 3y ago

> But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? Yes: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 Facebook collecting people's data even when accounts are deactivated (digiday.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 Facebook test asks users if they're worried a friend is 'becoming an extremist' (cnn.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

hartator 3y ago
All of this are far from material harms. Compared to what governments can do and are doing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kibwen 3y ago
  Not only is Facebook a tool of oppressive governments, Facebook's own annual revenue is larger than the GDP of 2/3 of the countries in the world. I don't understand why people have this blind spot when it comes to giving corporations a pass on things that they'd criticize a government for. Most corporations are expressly authoritarian organizations, more so than many governments. Neither Facebook users nor Facebook employees can vote Zuckerberg out.
  - hartator 3y ago
    Still I haven't heard about Facebook killing anyone.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Thorrez 3y ago
The 1st and 3rd link don't seem related to ads. The 4th link isn't loading for me, so I can't tell if it's related to ads. It's not clear to me that the 2nd link will be impacted by this new EU regulation.
- fsflover 3y ago
  Personalized ads means personalized tracking. The consequences are my links.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    Removing the ads doesn't remove the personalized tracking AFAIK. The personalized tracking remains AFAIK. And what's the definition of tracking? It's not clear to me if links 1,3,4 are related to personalized tracking. For example, is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking?
    - fsflover 3y ago
      The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. Tracking is defined in GDPR as storing personal information without consent or necessity. > is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking? Yes, if I did not give consent to create a profile on me.
      - Thorrez 3y ago
        >The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. That's not how I interpreted the conversation. The article says: >a ban imposed by non-EU member Norway on "behavioural advertising" on Facebook and Instagram That seems to be banning tracking for ads, but tracking for timeline suggestions and friend suggestions would still be allowed. And the comment I replied to seemed to be about ads: >>But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?

vharuck 3y ago

>And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Elections and courts. Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. When a company says, "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind. But you can sue the government for damages.

chroma 3y ago
> Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. They can’t go into my home without my permission and search my stuff. And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. If I don’t want to deal with a government, I have to emigrate and renounce my citizenship.
- mportela 3y ago
  > Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. But they used to, once upon a time, until they were limited from doing so. > And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. Except when you can't. There's no "stop interacting" for a bunch of things in today's society. Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products. If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    > Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products > If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance. Use cash, homestead, etc. Yes - you can, in fact, stop any data going to credit rating agencies. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop being of interest to one or another level of government in US, while living in the US. I know it's a radical example, but your statement is false.
JAlexoid 3y ago
> the government is very restricted in what it can do The government is no more or less restricted than a corporation. > "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind You can, you can sue for breach of contract. If the government tomorrow gets a law passed that they can share or institute a sharing system(like Five Eyes) - you literally can't even sue over anything. > But you can sue the government for damages. That's absolutely not true. In government individuals carry more responsibility than "government". German government can fail to protect your tax data tomorrow and you'll have no way to sue them. You'll be pointed to the individual who'll be blamed and may even go to prison. But you'll get FA. You have way more chances in winning a lawsuit against a corporation, than "a government".(barring some exceptions)