8 ms·

By Big Data, you surely mean Big Brother ...? Must be me, but this level of data mining was for me the reason to leave.

by jsemrau 13y ago

Aloha 13y ago
I'd rather have ads that might be relevant than ones that are not. This stuff can be done while keeping peoples privacy intact.
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  no it can't. Not unless 'privacy intact' means "people with access to the database will never use it for unintended purposes and it is completely secure from being broken into" both of which can't happen.
- 001sky 13y ago
  I'd rather have ads that might be relevant than ones that are not. This is preposterous. You would rather be manipulated better? Seriously... This is not a teneble position. Most people would prefer white noise. What you are espousing are simply the talking points of the advertsing indusrty. This is like a congressman thanking the lobbyist for "educating" him on the issues.
  - rescripting 13y ago
    You're missing his argument completely, which is that targeted advertising has upsides for both the advertiser and the consumer. While I prefer no ads over ads, given the choice I'd prefer relevant ads vs random ads. That being said targeted advertising infringes on your privacy. Rail against it for that reason. Don't make false assertions that people would prefer random advertising than advertising that they may actually be able to use.
    - oafitupa 13y ago
      He understood his argument just fine.
    - d0mine 13y ago
      You are assuming a benevolent advertiser that uses knowledge about you in a way that is aligned with your long-term interests. If we assume that a white noise advertising is less effective than a targeted advertising then it is in the interest of most people to prefer the former because a benevolent advertiser is a rare bird in real life.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      What he is saying is that advertisements manipulate you (likely without your knowledge) and that this is a net cost the the consumer (not to mention even dirtier ads for scams and malware, that's a different subject.) The other kinds of advertisement, the ones that actually inform you of something that is useful to you, do exist. But how much of a benefit are they? I don't think I've ever clicked on an internet ad or bought something because of one.
  - escherba 13y ago
    > You would rather be manipulated better? There is another way to look at it. "Manipulation" is sometimes necessitated by poor targeting.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    You are missing a very big point of advertising, which is not just to convince you the product is better than the competition, but that the product exists. In your example, it's like a congressional representative thanking a lobbyist for alerting them to a problem (which presumably they would then educate themselves on). I see no problem with that. I admit, I would rather the information come in a less obnoxious form in many instances, but let's not kid ourselves that ads have no informational content. Given that they produce some level of useful information, increasing the the level of usefulness without reducing privacy seems a laudable goal.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      but let's not kid ourselves that ads have no informational content Every piece of knowledge has an opportunity cost.[1] To make this point more explicit, the cost is asymetric. Advertising is no different than a drunk on a subway or a schizophrenic homeless person shouting nonsense to a passerby. Yes, they are communicating information. Let me put a bunch of this "information" in front of an advertsing executive's home in Atherton, and watch him call the police and have his lawyer write a letter to the housing association to change the zoning code. And then, the circle of life (and information, and special interests) will be complete/. =D [1] To paraphrase Nietzche.
      - kbenson 13y ago
        But the cost is already paid. We aren't talking about increasing advertising, we are talking about increasing the usefulness of advertising. Interspersed with that schizophrenic's nonsense is the useful tidbit reminding you it looks like rain, and there's a cheap umbrella a few steps ahead... Not to mention in-between his ramblings he does a pretty entertaining Hamlet. ;)
        001sky 13y ago
        Everyon understand's advertising makes other people money. It does so at the expense of polluting the information flow of other people. That is a market externality being exploited by one group at the expense of another. One person's eye0sore is another person's "information". But they have zoning laws that dis-allow LA style billboards in expensive neighborhoods...for good reason. The "information" has a negative externality on real-estate costs (aka: its an eyesore). And just like IRL, online advertising is the same way. Who makes the rules is just a matter of people's self-respect. It turns out that wealth white people find it degrading to be subject to advertising, so they put all of those ads for menthol ciggarettes in and alchohol in the black people's neighborhoods.
  - kevincrane 13y ago
    Absolutely I'd rather be "manipulated" better, if you count advertising that way. I'd much rather be shown ads for things I might actually want than stuff I have no interest in at all, and I say that as someone who has actually purchased things off of Facebook ads. If the ads going to be there regardless, might as well work it for the benefit of both me and the company presenting it.
    - monkeyspaw 13y ago
      I"d like to add that I'm also OK with Facebook/Google/whomever making money off that. I think it's just a spectrum of perspective. One side is privacy concerns, the other is the win/win/win where I see ads relevant to me, facebook makes a little money [in exchange for providing a free service that I value], and the advertiser makes a sale for promoting a product that I want. I don't know the right answer, but I think there's a balance to be struck.
    - normloman 13y ago
      This assumes you already want to buy the item in question, and advertising just helps you find the best place to buy it, or the best model to get. Consider the other side of the coin. Let's say Facebook shows you products that you don't already want, but based on your age, interests, and past behavior, you have a high likelihood of wanting. The barrage of ads you see convince you to buy that product. In this case, making the advertising more "useful" through better targeting doesn't save you, the consumer, time and money. Just encourages you to buy something you we're perfectly happy without. So is this the kind of advertising you'd like more of? The kind that sells more products for the company, but doesn't help the consumer make the best purchasing decision? Now I'm not opposed to advertising, and I think advertising can benefit companies and consumers. But we need to start a debate about the usefulness of advertising to separate good advertising from bad. Please pick apart my example above. I'm sure my argument has weaknesses, and I'd love to know what they are.
  - michaelt 13y ago
    This is preposterous. You would rather be manipulated better? Seriously... This is not a teneble position. I watch youtube videos about electronics [1]. Some of the content I watch is created by full-time video bloggers who rely on ad revenue to keep producing content. I figure skipping all ads isn't universalisable, so I watch ads from time to time. Sometimes I get interesting ads which do things like tell me about the new features I'd get if I upgraded my 10-year-old CAD software to the latest version, or if I brought a newer digital storage oscilloscope. These are things I could conceivably want, and that I'm interested to be told about. Other times I get videos for "latest horroscopes in hindi, the dynamics of capricorn" which there is no chance of me watching ever. Is it so hard to believe that, given I am going to see adverts, they might as well be adverts with some relevance to my interests? [1] http://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog http://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      >I watch youtube videos about electronics [1]. Some of the content I watch is created by full-time video bloggers who rely on ad revenue to keep producing content. I figure skipping all ads isn't universalisable, so I watch ads from time to time. This is an interesting concept, subjecting yourself to manipulation as a form of payment for a service. Of course if the ads are genuinely useful some of the time, it might be worth it. Or if you believe that ads don't affect you. And that you are somehow tricking companies to waste money on ads that are ineffective. But there is an argument to be made that advertisements do affect you without your knowledge and that watching them is a net loss.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        Houshalter 13y ago
        That's not the same thing at all or a good reason to do it.
- justinpombrio 13y ago
  Wait, if you broke up with someone a few days ago and are now seeing dating ads, how could your privacy have been kept intact? This implies that an ad network has knowledge about your love life.
  - jsmeaton 13y ago
    The assumption is that you've changed your relationship status, and that's how they know you're now single. Telling Facebook that you're single, and them using that information to present an ad for a dating website is not an abuse of private information. You've freely given a first party some information, and they've used that information to display an ad from a 3rd party. There is no abuse of privacy here.

By Big Data, you surely mean Big Brother ...? Must be me, but this level of data mining was for me the reason to leave.

by jsemrau 13y ago

By Big Data, you surely mean Big Brother ...? Must be me, but this level of data mining was for me the reason to leave.

Aloha 13y ago

I'd rather have ads that might be relevant than ones that are not. This stuff can be done while keeping peoples privacy intact.

twelvechairs 13y ago
no it can't. Not unless 'privacy intact' means "people with access to the database will never use it for unintended purposes and it is completely secure from being broken into" both of which can't happen.
001sky 13y ago
I'd rather have ads that might be relevant than ones that are not. This is preposterous. You would rather be manipulated better? Seriously... This is not a teneble position. Most people would prefer white noise. What you are espousing are simply the talking points of the advertsing indusrty. This is like a congressman thanking the lobbyist for "educating" him on the issues.
- rescripting 13y ago
  You're missing his argument completely, which is that targeted advertising has upsides for both the advertiser and the consumer. While I prefer no ads over ads, given the choice I'd prefer relevant ads vs random ads. That being said targeted advertising infringes on your privacy. Rail against it for that reason. Don't make false assertions that people would prefer random advertising than advertising that they may actually be able to use.
  - oafitupa 13y ago
    He understood his argument just fine.
  - d0mine 13y ago
    You are assuming a benevolent advertiser that uses knowledge about you in a way that is aligned with your long-term interests. If we assume that a white noise advertising is less effective than a targeted advertising then it is in the interest of most people to prefer the former because a benevolent advertiser is a rare bird in real life.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    What he is saying is that advertisements manipulate you (likely without your knowledge) and that this is a net cost the the consumer (not to mention even dirtier ads for scams and malware, that's a different subject.) The other kinds of advertisement, the ones that actually inform you of something that is useful to you, do exist. But how much of a benefit are they? I don't think I've ever clicked on an internet ad or bought something because of one.
- escherba 13y ago
  > You would rather be manipulated better? There is another way to look at it. "Manipulation" is sometimes necessitated by poor targeting.
- kbenson 13y ago
  You are missing a very big point of advertising, which is not just to convince you the product is better than the competition, but that the product exists. In your example, it's like a congressional representative thanking a lobbyist for alerting them to a problem (which presumably they would then educate themselves on). I see no problem with that. I admit, I would rather the information come in a less obnoxious form in many instances, but let's not kid ourselves that ads have no informational content. Given that they produce some level of useful information, increasing the the level of usefulness without reducing privacy seems a laudable goal.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    but let's not kid ourselves that ads have no informational content Every piece of knowledge has an opportunity cost.[1] To make this point more explicit, the cost is asymetric. Advertising is no different than a drunk on a subway or a schizophrenic homeless person shouting nonsense to a passerby. Yes, they are communicating information. Let me put a bunch of this "information" in front of an advertsing executive's home in Atherton, and watch him call the police and have his lawyer write a letter to the housing association to change the zoning code. And then, the circle of life (and information, and special interests) will be complete/. =D [1] To paraphrase Nietzche.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      But the cost is already paid. We aren't talking about increasing advertising, we are talking about increasing the usefulness of advertising. Interspersed with that schizophrenic's nonsense is the useful tidbit reminding you it looks like rain, and there's a cheap umbrella a few steps ahead... Not to mention in-between his ramblings he does a pretty entertaining Hamlet. ;)
      - 001sky 13y ago
        Everyon understand's advertising makes other people money. It does so at the expense of polluting the information flow of other people. That is a market externality being exploited by one group at the expense of another. One person's eye0sore is another person's "information". But they have zoning laws that dis-allow LA style billboards in expensive neighborhoods...for good reason. The "information" has a negative externality on real-estate costs (aka: its an eyesore). And just like IRL, online advertising is the same way. Who makes the rules is just a matter of people's self-respect. It turns out that wealth white people find it degrading to be subject to advertising, so they put all of those ads for menthol ciggarettes in and alchohol in the black people's neighborhoods.
- kevincrane 13y ago
  Absolutely I'd rather be "manipulated" better, if you count advertising that way. I'd much rather be shown ads for things I might actually want than stuff I have no interest in at all, and I say that as someone who has actually purchased things off of Facebook ads. If the ads going to be there regardless, might as well work it for the benefit of both me and the company presenting it.
  - monkeyspaw 13y ago
    I"d like to add that I'm also OK with Facebook/Google/whomever making money off that. I think it's just a spectrum of perspective. One side is privacy concerns, the other is the win/win/win where I see ads relevant to me, facebook makes a little money [in exchange for providing a free service that I value], and the advertiser makes a sale for promoting a product that I want. I don't know the right answer, but I think there's a balance to be struck.
  - normloman 13y ago
    This assumes you already want to buy the item in question, and advertising just helps you find the best place to buy it, or the best model to get. Consider the other side of the coin. Let's say Facebook shows you products that you don't already want, but based on your age, interests, and past behavior, you have a high likelihood of wanting. The barrage of ads you see convince you to buy that product. In this case, making the advertising more "useful" through better targeting doesn't save you, the consumer, time and money. Just encourages you to buy something you we're perfectly happy without. So is this the kind of advertising you'd like more of? The kind that sells more products for the company, but doesn't help the consumer make the best purchasing decision? Now I'm not opposed to advertising, and I think advertising can benefit companies and consumers. But we need to start a debate about the usefulness of advertising to separate good advertising from bad. Please pick apart my example above. I'm sure my argument has weaknesses, and I'd love to know what they are.
- michaelt 13y ago
  This is preposterous. You would rather be manipulated better? Seriously... This is not a teneble position. I watch youtube videos about electronics [1]. Some of the content I watch is created by full-time video bloggers who rely on ad revenue to keep producing content. I figure skipping all ads isn't universalisable, so I watch ads from time to time. Sometimes I get interesting ads which do things like tell me about the new features I'd get if I upgraded my 10-year-old CAD software to the latest version, or if I brought a newer digital storage oscilloscope. These are things I could conceivably want, and that I'm interested to be told about. Other times I get videos for "latest horroscopes in hindi, the dynamics of capricorn" which there is no chance of me watching ever. Is it so hard to believe that, given I am going to see adverts, they might as well be adverts with some relevance to my interests? [1] http://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog http://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    >I watch youtube videos about electronics [1]. Some of the content I watch is created by full-time video bloggers who rely on ad revenue to keep producing content. I figure skipping all ads isn't universalisable, so I watch ads from time to time. This is an interesting concept, subjecting yourself to manipulation as a form of payment for a service. Of course if the ads are genuinely useful some of the time, it might be worth it. Or if you believe that ads don't affect you. And that you are somehow tricking companies to waste money on ads that are ineffective. But there is an argument to be made that advertisements do affect you without your knowledge and that watching them is a net loss.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - Houshalter 13y ago
        That's not the same thing at all or a good reason to do it.
justinpombrio 13y ago
Wait, if you broke up with someone a few days ago and are now seeing dating ads, how could your privacy have been kept intact? This implies that an ad network has knowledge about your love life.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  The assumption is that you've changed your relationship status, and that's how they know you're now single. Telling Facebook that you're single, and them using that information to present an ad for a dating website is not an abuse of private information. You've freely given a first party some information, and they've used that information to display an ad from a 3rd party. There is no abuse of privacy here.