5 ms·

People object to advertising because it is annoying and distracting. If the ads disappear, they got what they paid for. It's not about avoiding their "behavior

People object to advertising because it is annoying and distracting. If the ads disappear, they got what they paid for. It's not about avoiding their "behavior being monitized", most people don't care about that at all.

mitthrowaway2 11mo ago
No, I care about that as much or more.
- pavel_lishin 11mo ago
  But are you most people? I'd wager that just by the virtue of being commenters on HN, we're already outliers.
- jcalvinowens 11mo ago
  You're an outlier. Ask ten people at your local bus stop if this is important to them, and tell me how many start laughing at you :)
  - squigz 11mo ago
    If I went up to random people and went like, "Do you approve of companies tracking what you buy, eat, do, where you go, and every other aspect of your life?" I promise you I would get a majority of "No"s
    - jcalvinowens 11mo ago
      The question I'm asking is "would you pay more money if the service promised not to sell your data". That's a hard no for most people. If you frame it as a negative thing with no downsides for agreeing with you, of course people will agree. But that's not the reality.
      - squigz 11mo ago
        The claim you made was that people don't care about their behavior being monetized.
        jcalvinowens 11mo ago
        Don't care enough to sacrifice anything tangible to avoid it, yes. I would think it's obvious the question as you framed it biases responses to the point they're meaningless...
        dylan604 11mo ago
        'People object to advertising because it is annoying and distracting. If the ads disappear, they got what they paid for. It's not about avoiding their "behavior being monitized", most people don't care about that at all.' That's your quote as I read it in case some editing happens. There's no caveat in your original post that you are claiming now. You've moved the goal posts. As you originally stated, I agree with all of the follow up comments to it that you are now trying to expand on your original comment. Maybe that's what you always meant but just left out of the original. It happens. But now you're being obstinate about it in a way that doesn't look good.
        jcalvinowens 11mo ago
        No, you're just nitpicking the semantics and missing the forest for the trees. Everyone except you seems to understand that that was the beginning of a discussion, not an opening statement in a fucking court.
        dylan604 11mo ago
        yeah, it's me with the problem, that's why i'm at least the 3rd person to take issue
      - ajbourg 11mo ago
        Not because people don't value their personal data but because they, rightfully, value those promises as worth approximately nothing.
  - dfxm12 11mo ago
    I specifically mentioned people on this website. Based on comments I regularly come across on this website, I don't think the person you're responding to is an outlier. I would hope we can stay on topic.
    - jcalvinowens 11mo ago
      You missed the point. People on this website are too small a fraction of society to ever move the needle. My point is that it doesn't matter what people on this website want with respect to privacy, in our capitalist democratic society it will never happen unless most people want it. The reality right now is that most people don't want it.
      - dfxm12 11mo ago
        If that was your point, I suggest you post more clearly in the future, because your post did not suggest this.
        jcalvinowens 11mo ago
        [flagged]
criddell 11mo ago
Some of us don't care that much about advertising, but we object to surveillance.
gremlinunderway 11mo ago
People "don't care" because they do not understand the implications or the technology, not because they genuinely have no interest in privacy. Of course its easy to dupe people without technical literacy by characterizing it as some benign "targeted advertising" as if its a service being provided for you (when clearly it's not) rather than the actual answer which is "we want to follow your every movement and pattern of behaviour as if we had someone following you in an unmarked car and then sell that data to anyone willing to cough up the cash without any of your consent". This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited. There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.
- jcalvinowens 11mo ago
  > People "don't care" because they do not understand the implications or the technology, not because they genuinely have no interest in privacy. I don't disagree with you there. > This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited. The people get what they vote for, whether or not its what they deserve. The only way to move the needle on this is to educate people. Telling people they're "stupid sheep" for not wanting the thing you think they should want is not typically a winning strategy, in my experience. > There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent. I'm simply saying I think most people care more about the first thing.
ssl-3 11mo ago
Your opinion is unpopular in this subset of folks here, but it's valid. It isn't out-of-keeping in this kind of company for a person to start discussions about personal data privacy. In fact: We chat about this stuff here all the time. But in reality: The number of discussions I've had about personal data privacy and monetization face-to-face with people that I did not meet through a computer network, or bring up myself is exactly 1. It's thus my observation that most people in the world care about this issue approximately...never. (The reason they don't care may be that they don't know enough to even begin to question whether the people behind their air fryer, genealogical DNA service, garage door opener, and food delivery system may have ulterior motives. But guesses about root causation are, at best, both tangential and broadly inconsequential. We can guess and figure and re-figure and even prove theories until the cows come home. And it doesn't matter. They didn't care yesterday, they still don't care today while I write this, and they will continue to not care tomorrow.)

mitthrowaway2 11mo ago

No, I care about that as much or more.

pavel_lishin 11mo ago
But are you most people? I'd wager that just by the virtue of being commenters on HN, we're already outliers.
jcalvinowens 11mo ago
You're an outlier. Ask ten people at your local bus stop if this is important to them, and tell me how many start laughing at you :)
- squigz 11mo ago
  If I went up to random people and went like, "Do you approve of companies tracking what you buy, eat, do, where you go, and every other aspect of your life?" I promise you I would get a majority of "No"s
  - jcalvinowens 11mo ago
    The question I'm asking is "would you pay more money if the service promised not to sell your data". That's a hard no for most people. If you frame it as a negative thing with no downsides for agreeing with you, of course people will agree. But that's not the reality.
    - squigz 11mo ago
      The claim you made was that people don't care about their behavior being monetized.
      - jcalvinowens 11mo ago
        Don't care enough to sacrifice anything tangible to avoid it, yes. I would think it's obvious the question as you framed it biases responses to the point they're meaningless...
        dylan604 11mo ago
        'People object to advertising because it is annoying and distracting. If the ads disappear, they got what they paid for. It's not about avoiding their "behavior being monitized", most people don't care about that at all.' That's your quote as I read it in case some editing happens. There's no caveat in your original post that you are claiming now. You've moved the goal posts. As you originally stated, I agree with all of the follow up comments to it that you are now trying to expand on your original comment. Maybe that's what you always meant but just left out of the original. It happens. But now you're being obstinate about it in a way that doesn't look good.
        jcalvinowens 11mo ago
        No, you're just nitpicking the semantics and missing the forest for the trees. Everyone except you seems to understand that that was the beginning of a discussion, not an opening statement in a fucking court.
        dylan604 11mo ago
        yeah, it's me with the problem, that's why i'm at least the 3rd person to take issue
    - ajbourg 11mo ago
      Not because people don't value their personal data but because they, rightfully, value those promises as worth approximately nothing.
- dfxm12 11mo ago
  I specifically mentioned people on this website. Based on comments I regularly come across on this website, I don't think the person you're responding to is an outlier. I would hope we can stay on topic.
  - jcalvinowens 11mo ago
    You missed the point. People on this website are too small a fraction of society to ever move the needle. My point is that it doesn't matter what people on this website want with respect to privacy, in our capitalist democratic society it will never happen unless most people want it. The reality right now is that most people don't want it.
    - dfxm12 11mo ago
      If that was your point, I suggest you post more clearly in the future, because your post did not suggest this.
      - jcalvinowens 11mo ago
        [flagged]

criddell 11mo ago

Some of us don't care that much about advertising, but we object to surveillance.

gremlinunderway 11mo ago

People "don't care" because they do not understand the implications or the technology, not because they genuinely have no interest in privacy. Of course its easy to dupe people without technical literacy by characterizing it as some benign "targeted advertising" as if its a service being provided for you (when clearly it's not) rather than the actual answer which is "we want to follow your every movement and pattern of behaviour as if we had someone following you in an unmarked car and then sell that data to anyone willing to cough up the cash without any of your consent". This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited. There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.

jcalvinowens 11mo ago
> People "don't care" because they do not understand the implications or the technology, not because they genuinely have no interest in privacy. I don't disagree with you there. > This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited. The people get what they vote for, whether or not its what they deserve. The only way to move the needle on this is to educate people. Telling people they're "stupid sheep" for not wanting the thing you think they should want is not typically a winning strategy, in my experience. > There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent. I'm simply saying I think most people care more about the first thing.

ssl-3 11mo ago

Your opinion is unpopular in this subset of folks here, but it's valid. It isn't out-of-keeping in this kind of company for a person to start discussions about personal data privacy. In fact: We chat about this stuff here all the time. But in reality: The number of discussions I've had about personal data privacy and monetization face-to-face with people that I did not meet through a computer network, or bring up myself is exactly 1. It's thus my observation that most people in the world care about this issue approximately...never. (The reason they don't care may be that they don't know enough to even begin to question whether the people behind their air fryer, genealogical DNA service, garage door opener, and food delivery system may have ulterior motives. But guesses about root causation are, at best, both tangential and broadly inconsequential. We can guess and figure and re-figure and even prove theories until the cows come home. And it doesn't matter. They didn't care yesterday, they still don't care today while I write this, and they will continue to not care tomorrow.)