13 ms·

No, you’re saying that filtering people == having a call to action. That is a false equivalency. I’m also not sure if you are attempting to attack me for only

• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > No, you’re saying that filtering people == having a call to action. No, I'm saying that the personal information that the advertisers get is what they deduce from the response to the call to action. Filtering who sees the ad (among other functions, this isn't actually the most important) serves a mechanism to attempt to shape the pool of people who respond to the call to action, but its not really different (in terms of the advertiser being able to derive personal information) from the use of the actual content of the ad to influence which people who are exposed to it will respond. > I’m also not sure if you are attempting to attack me for only discussing Google. Pointing out errors in your argument isn't attacking you. And, to be sure, the errors in your argument have nothing to do with the fact that it references Google, but with the fact that it posits a false equivalency between selling personal information and selling target advertising placement based on the fact that advertisers can derive personal information from the active responses of advertising viewers to the calls to action in targetted ads.