Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it(proton.me)
proton.me
Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it
https://proton.me/blog/google-lobbying
185 comments
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.
I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.
As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.
I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.
As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.
>>Advertisements and marketing are immoral.
So if you are selling something it's literally immoral to tell other people about it? How do you think people will ever find your store or product that you make? Just randomly stumble upon it? I'm genuinely curious.
So if you are selling something it's literally immoral to tell other people about it? How do you think people will ever find your store or product that you make? Just randomly stumble upon it? I'm genuinely curious.
It is not immoral to tell someone the bare facts of your offer. It is immoral to construct an advertisement, that is a carefully crafted message intended to manipulate the recipient. If your idea of an advertisement is a written text box or a person reading in a monotone voice the "speeds and feeds" and the price, then by all means, go for it. But if you think it's okay to imply without specifically saying it that your product has capabilities it does not, or to make the viewer experience emotional responses leading them to believe your product will make them feel better after you intentionally made them feel bad, then I would strongly argue that your advertisements are immoral.
Further, almost all advertisement is party A selling party C's eyeballs to party B, without involving party C at all. Some people buy Vogue magazine specifically for the ads and cool, but my start menu on my monitor attached to my computer all belong to me, not Microsoft to then auction off to somebody else. A deal that changed after I made the deal with Microsoft that didn't include that. That's clearly immoral.
When did you make a deal with Microsoft not to modify your start menu and how can I get in on that?
So, it’s really very simple. I either want ads or I don’t want ads. Only if I want ads should there be a choice between targeted, contextual or random. There is no “I don’t want ads but I should get them anyway because reasons”. And the fact that today it’s impossible for me to opt out of ads is the problem. Talking about the feasibility of the internet is also manipulative. The argument here is and always has been about choice. Google and friends want to protect their ability to remove choice from us.
If I visit a website with ad blockers, it has the right to block me. It’s business model will depend on whether the number of people it has to block will kill it. This means it should probably find a better business model, not force itself on everyone.
If I visit a website with ad blockers, it has the right to block me. It’s business model will depend on whether the number of people it has to block will kill it. This means it should probably find a better business model, not force itself on everyone.
You smell bad.
You look terrible.
Your teeth are yellow.
Your hair is stringy.
But you can fix everything with our Cure-All Elixir, and you will be made whole again... but you had better keep drinking every day, or.....
----------
Advertisements are no longer "we make stuff. Come here to buy stuff".
It then progressed to "people who buy our stuff feel good". But that wasn't all.
Then it progressed to non-spoken feelings when in proximity of thing.
And it turns out, that you can manufacture want of your good or service. And if you gatekeep the emotions of good, wholesome, fresh, clean, happy behind your product, you can tell people they're horrible trolls unless you buy and consume.
But even those tactics weren't enough. Now, most sales are in tech related stuff. And instead of telling people over advertisement channels, now they get pushed to your devices.
And the current stage, also known as enshittification, is also cloud-tying to guarantee captive consumers, so they can't easily leave. Cloud is the ultimate hardware and data roach motel.
So yeah, looking at the recent history of advertisements is just broken, unethical, shits on the environment, and assails human thoughts just to sell more garbage.
You look terrible.
Your teeth are yellow.
Your hair is stringy.
But you can fix everything with our Cure-All Elixir, and you will be made whole again... but you had better keep drinking every day, or.....
----------
Advertisements are no longer "we make stuff. Come here to buy stuff".
It then progressed to "people who buy our stuff feel good". But that wasn't all.
Then it progressed to non-spoken feelings when in proximity of thing.
And it turns out, that you can manufacture want of your good or service. And if you gatekeep the emotions of good, wholesome, fresh, clean, happy behind your product, you can tell people they're horrible trolls unless you buy and consume.
But even those tactics weren't enough. Now, most sales are in tech related stuff. And instead of telling people over advertisement channels, now they get pushed to your devices.
And the current stage, also known as enshittification, is also cloud-tying to guarantee captive consumers, so they can't easily leave. Cloud is the ultimate hardware and data roach motel.
So yeah, looking at the recent history of advertisements is just broken, unethical, shits on the environment, and assails human thoughts just to sell more garbage.
I misread "data roach model" and wondered for a second what "data roaches" are :)
Your entire diatribe is not really about advertising inherently.
Those whom do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
I am an anticapitalist, and I am acutely aware of what I am against. Advertisements, and how they solidified in the 1800s to current is one such thing I'm directly against.
I've also seen Rome Collesuem's chiseled graffiti to what amounts to "eat at restaurant". Rudimentary, when compared to hiring psychologists to extract as much wealth by exploiting the human psyche, but they were adverts nonetheless. And even those shat upon infrastructure and the humans who were there.
I do think there's a gradient of unethicalness in advertising. If I'm looking for a thing, and shown lists of things that match what I'm looking for, it's at least consensual behavior.
But these days, advertisements are anything but. They're invasive, insidious, and many a time try to fool the human that they're legitimate (and not paid) content.
But I'm guessing the emotional words you chose to use tells me you're probably in adtech.
I am an anticapitalist, and I am acutely aware of what I am against. Advertisements, and how they solidified in the 1800s to current is one such thing I'm directly against.
I've also seen Rome Collesuem's chiseled graffiti to what amounts to "eat at restaurant". Rudimentary, when compared to hiring psychologists to extract as much wealth by exploiting the human psyche, but they were adverts nonetheless. And even those shat upon infrastructure and the humans who were there.
I do think there's a gradient of unethicalness in advertising. If I'm looking for a thing, and shown lists of things that match what I'm looking for, it's at least consensual behavior.
But these days, advertisements are anything but. They're invasive, insidious, and many a time try to fool the human that they're legitimate (and not paid) content.
But I'm guessing the emotional words you chose to use tells me you're probably in adtech.
> If I'm looking for a thing, and shown lists of things that match what I'm looking for, it's at least consensual behavior.
An argument I find compelling here is as follows: sometimes I will look for something, and the world will tell me what I want does not exist. I will either build it myself or do without. If the state of the world changes, and a solution emerges, I would like that fact pushed to me (concrete example: new, more efficient battery chemistries for hot climates).
Waiting for everyone to pull slows down growth of whoever is innovating this new thing - which in turns hinders their innovation - which in turn slows down innovation in the economy.
There's a tradeoff here with all the bad things you lay out about advertising, but I'm not convinced I should prefer the more rapid rate of innovation.
An argument I find compelling here is as follows: sometimes I will look for something, and the world will tell me what I want does not exist. I will either build it myself or do without. If the state of the world changes, and a solution emerges, I would like that fact pushed to me (concrete example: new, more efficient battery chemistries for hot climates).
Waiting for everyone to pull slows down growth of whoever is innovating this new thing - which in turns hinders their innovation - which in turn slows down innovation in the economy.
There's a tradeoff here with all the bad things you lay out about advertising, but I'm not convinced I should prefer the more rapid rate of innovation.
Well put comrade.
It's about maximally effective advertising. Why would you choose anything less?
Something like listing yourself in a business directory seems perfectly ethical. Something like yellow pages. Maybe where you are limited to a logo, 1-2 sentences, and a URL, with e.g. category or location metadata for the user to filter on. There could be a uniform nominal fee to pay for the service, or have it be a public service. Businesses could be presented in random order when browsing, or maybe in order of distance from a user-chosen location. Basically, a pull model for people to find businesses that provide products or services that they want. A similar model could be used for listing products, and then maybe the business directory could let you list retailers that carry a specific product or set of products.
Anything much above that starts to veer into the territory of paying to distort people's understanding of the market, or convince them they want things that they don't, etc.
Anything much above that starts to veer into the territory of paying to distort people's understanding of the market, or convince them they want things that they don't, etc.
Not immoral. Just potentially counterproductive.
I've taken a stance, DECADES ago, that all ads are telegraphing a very simple message: "my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits, therefore I have to spend money to drown out the more worthy options".
I've taken a stance, DECADES ago, that all ads are telegraphing a very simple message: "my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits, therefore I have to spend money to drown out the more worthy options".
//my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits
That's kinda like assuming that because you're such a good guy, you never have to leave your basement and your future wife will find you.
You could just as well interpret advertising as "I am so convinced my offering is good, I am willing to spend money for you to become aware of it."
That's kinda like assuming that because you're such a good guy, you never have to leave your basement and your future wife will find you.
You could just as well interpret advertising as "I am so convinced my offering is good, I am willing to spend money for you to become aware of it."
[deleted]
> Just potentially counterproductive.
It is definitely not counterproductive. Mountains of evidence and real $ back the fact that advertising works.
You have a quirky pocket theory
If you want to conduct an experiment, try making a product or starting a business and don't advertise it.
It is definitely not counterproductive. Mountains of evidence and real $ back the fact that advertising works.
You have a quirky pocket theory
If you want to conduct an experiment, try making a product or starting a business and don't advertise it.
I wasn't trying to claim it didn't work. That's the whole point of it: to drown out other options. Hence for me advertising is a major negative signal as far as quality or suitability for purpose is concerned.
It's like being in the countryside, where each inn and resting spot has a fire going on. You can spot them by their smoke trails. Then some entrepreneurial individual wants to grab market share from the punters and puts up a massive tire fire. A billowing column of black smoke will be seen from way further off, and as luck would have it, blocks visibility to anything behind it. It also makes the surrounding environment worse off for everyone.
And anyone who is attracted by the big flames will soon find themselves inhaling toxins.
It's like being in the countryside, where each inn and resting spot has a fire going on. You can spot them by their smoke trails. Then some entrepreneurial individual wants to grab market share from the punters and puts up a massive tire fire. A billowing column of black smoke will be seen from way further off, and as luck would have it, blocks visibility to anything behind it. It also makes the surrounding environment worse off for everyone.
And anyone who is attracted by the big flames will soon find themselves inhaling toxins.
now stretch that analogy and substitute the valuable service (lodging) for something benign, like astrology or pet barber.
In theory it's possible for it to be perfectly ethical. In practice this happens so rarely that it's not worth discussing.
It looks like a worthwhile discussion about which you have not yet been able to prepare a reasonably well thought argument to present.
Because I'm not arguing in that discussion: I would support ads that inform without manipulating. But since they statistically don't exist, pointing to them in an argument about real ads is just a motte-and-bailey.
If I recommended something to you but didn't believe it was actually worth recommending, is that immoral? Well I basically lied to you...
But it's ok! Because I also financially benefited from it.
Yes, marketing is immoral.
But it's ok! Because I also financially benefited from it.
Yes, marketing is immoral.
If it pays me, then I believe it's worth recommending :)
Though if you reject this implication, I totally agree.
Though if you reject this implication, I totally agree.
imho rational beings have to reject it as it undermines trust and hence society as a whole.
This is a bad faith argument. You ought to know what the social and psychological effects of what you're defending. It isn't just informing people that a business exists. It's getting in the way of their normal routine to shove your capitalist crap in someone's face to buy. You don't stop random conversations to bring up products in normal conversation, so it has no place to interrupt conversation.
Advertising is fucking everywhere. I don't want to hear about new products and services because all of them literally just want your money. I'm not always shopping or looking for a product. I find navigating markets a massive ass pain.
We need legislation that forces advertising to the margins of society, where it belongs. We aren't just sacks of meat to be manipulated. There is nothing just about commercial communication having a louder voice than the people.
Advertising is fucking everywhere. I don't want to hear about new products and services because all of them literally just want your money. I'm not always shopping or looking for a product. I find navigating markets a massive ass pain.
We need legislation that forces advertising to the margins of society, where it belongs. We aren't just sacks of meat to be manipulated. There is nothing just about commercial communication having a louder voice than the people.
>>This is a bad faith argument. You ought to know what the social and psychological effects of what you're defending.
I don't understand why or how you see my question as one made in bad faith. OP said all advertising is immoral - I want to explore if they really think all advertising is immoral, or just some subset of it. Like, if you own a butcher shop and have a sign up front that says "fresh meat here!", is that immoral? If yes, why? Again, I'm genuienly curious.
I don't understand why or how you see my question as one made in bad faith. OP said all advertising is immoral - I want to explore if they really think all advertising is immoral, or just some subset of it. Like, if you own a butcher shop and have a sign up front that says "fresh meat here!", is that immoral? If yes, why? Again, I'm genuienly curious.
//You don't stop random conversations to bring up products in normal conversation
Sure you do. If people are talking about cars for their families, and I have a suggestion for them based on my prior research, I'll share it. It's been raining a lot in my area recently, so lots of folks talking about which basement waterproofer they had a good experience with.
The reason these things don't feel like ads is because they are "super targeted" - I am telling someone about a product/service that I believe they would be interested in based on what I understand about them. Obviously I also don't get paid for this messaging but that's probably not the crux of the matter here. If advertising was "so good" that I would only see ads for products that are genuinely valuable and relevant to me at that time, that would be great.
Sure you do. If people are talking about cars for their families, and I have a suggestion for them based on my prior research, I'll share it. It's been raining a lot in my area recently, so lots of folks talking about which basement waterproofer they had a good experience with.
The reason these things don't feel like ads is because they are "super targeted" - I am telling someone about a product/service that I believe they would be interested in based on what I understand about them. Obviously I also don't get paid for this messaging but that's probably not the crux of the matter here. If advertising was "so good" that I would only see ads for products that are genuinely valuable and relevant to me at that time, that would be great.
Who do you think the current system of "biggest malvertising budget wins" favours? Who do you think can afford those massive budgets?
I don't see how that's relevant to my question. OP said that all advertising is immoral, I wonder if they really mean ALL advertising.
>Who do you think can afford those massive budgets?
Businesses that sell a lot of products that people actually want and do not end up returning. The money for advertising is not sustainable if it doesn't result in some sort of purchase down the line.
Businesses that sell a lot of products that people actually want and do not end up returning. The money for advertising is not sustainable if it doesn't result in some sort of purchase down the line.
A business can also subsidize adverts for "bad" products by profit from "good" products.
Nobody would intentionally chose to do that...
Why? Looks pretty imaginable to me.
Because it would be more profitable to get rid of rather than subsidize the bad product in that scenario.
No, "bad" here is only for consumers, for the business it could be profitable.
Maybe we have a different definition of the word "subsidize" then
Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not "psychological manipulation at scale?"
Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome by the end of the ad spot. Advertisements are.
Words in general don't go through endless focus grouping and internal company debate to ensure the exact choice of words, tone of voice and cadence in uttering them, elicit the correct emotional response. Advertisements do.
You are being disingenuous in your response to me and trying to set up a strawman.
I realize a lot of highly paid tech workers on HN work in adtech or adtech-adjacent. It's even helped to pay my salary at different points in my career. It doesn't change the fact of the matter. The /entire point/ of advertisements is to psychologically manipulate the person viewing the ad. That is immoral, full stop.
Words in general don't go through endless focus grouping and internal company debate to ensure the exact choice of words, tone of voice and cadence in uttering them, elicit the correct emotional response. Advertisements do.
You are being disingenuous in your response to me and trying to set up a strawman.
I realize a lot of highly paid tech workers on HN work in adtech or adtech-adjacent. It's even helped to pay my salary at different points in my career. It doesn't change the fact of the matter. The /entire point/ of advertisements is to psychologically manipulate the person viewing the ad. That is immoral, full stop.
Everything you're saying can be applied to journalism. Is journalism immoral? Give me a break.
Some "journalism" is immoral, most of which falls into that category effectively /are/ advertisements being put into the public eye under the cover of journalism. You are painting so broad a brush in order to create a fundamental category error in your constructed straw man. You might fool others, but your argument holds no sway with me because it is utterly inane and transparent for what it is.
If you cannot articulate an actual point in response to me, I'd advise barking up another tree.
If you cannot articulate an actual point in response to me, I'd advise barking up another tree.
You presented a very concrete set of attributes that you call immoral.
> Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome
I have presented something, journalism, that does the same things. You claim that some journalism is not immoral which is true. It must follow for the same reason that some advertisements are not immoral either.
Seems like you don't have an actual argument - posting on a Y Combinator MARKETING page, no less.
> Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome
I have presented something, journalism, that does the same things. You claim that some journalism is not immoral which is true. It must follow for the same reason that some advertisements are not immoral either.
Seems like you don't have an actual argument - posting on a Y Combinator MARKETING page, no less.
Believe me, if journalists could tap the same set of resources as advertising does, they would. A really good editor can turn a mediocre piece to a good one, but it takes time, and 3-4 rounds of back-and forth. The same editor, working with a prodigiously talented writer, can turn a rough diamond into something absolutely incredible.
Disclosure: I've done about a decade of freelancing, and during that time was trained by old-school practitioners on how to structure my writing.
Disclosure: I've done about a decade of freelancing, and during that time was trained by old-school practitioners on how to structure my writing.
Does journalism motivate people to spend money on shit they don't need?
People are so used to being inundated with commercial attempts at manipulation that it's just part of their day.
Do you use an adblocker?
People are so used to being inundated with commercial attempts at manipulation that it's just part of their day.
Do you use an adblocker?
People having a visceral hate of advertising and a vast swath of the internet's users block them in every permutation because advertising is good for ones mental health?
Car ads selling sex appeal, power, status and freedom are provable features of the car? Same goes for influencers pushing products, submarine marketing, etc... It is all psychology and it is manipulation at scale. Words at scale designed to manipulate people into doing something is psychological.
Car ads selling sex appeal, power, status and freedom are provable features of the car? Same goes for influencers pushing products, submarine marketing, etc... It is all psychology and it is manipulation at scale. Words at scale designed to manipulate people into doing something is psychological.
People block ads because they like to have control over the content they see. Not because of this nebulous fear of manipulation. If ad blocking was made impossible tomorrow then I'd learn other ways to tune out advertisements. It's because ads are boring and intrusive. Not because they're manipulative.
I can only speak for myself but I block advertising because I find no utility in them in any form. I am curious what others reasons are?
Tin foil hat time: I've started writing down companies behind ads that happen to slip through my defenses that are obnoxious/offensive/etc. Because, as you mention, so much of advertising is psychological manipulation. It'll be helpful to have a list of offenders to reference to before making a purchase for example.
The idea occurred to me after someone here proclaimed that they're simply unaffected by ads, reasoning they don't make rash purchases. Someone naturally countered with the extreme subconscious effect of ads.
This list thing is imperfect (I mean look how omnipresent car logos are for example) but it's an improvement from thinking you're immune to ads. Memory is fickle, and why Memento is my favorite movie.
The idea occurred to me after someone here proclaimed that they're simply unaffected by ads, reasoning they don't make rash purchases. Someone naturally countered with the extreme subconscious effect of ads.
This list thing is imperfect (I mean look how omnipresent car logos are for example) but it's an improvement from thinking you're immune to ads. Memory is fickle, and why Memento is my favorite movie.
Do you believe all words are equally manipulative? That if we categorize speech by funding and intent, no category would be more manipulative than any other?
you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say anything about magnitudes, just that communication is inherently manipulative.
> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.
"no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).
"no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).
No more does not imply equality, just that it's not greater than, which is simply the truth. Advertisements are not inherently more manipulative than words in general.
If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.
If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.
> If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.
What do you think advertising is? It's propaganda for a product.
What do you think advertising is? It's propaganda for a product.
No, it is not. Advertising could be propaganda, but it is not inherently so.
Nope. You did say:
> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.
This is a statement about magnitudes and in my estimation the statement is mostly wrong.
> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.
This is a statement about magnitudes and in my estimation the statement is mostly wrong.
it's not right or wrong.
is paid poster in a college dorm hall - an advertisement - more or less manipulative than Trump's January 6th tweets?
If you have evidence to suggest that advertisements are inherently more manipulative than other types of communication feel free to share.
is paid poster in a college dorm hall - an advertisement - more or less manipulative than Trump's January 6th tweets?
If you have evidence to suggest that advertisements are inherently more manipulative than other types of communication feel free to share.
You have weighed "words in general" against ads. For me that is comparing an average with those ads. The average of generally used words/speech is very, very far from Trump's tweets and similar communication, IMHO.
That's so wide it says nothing. It's not even a soccer field, much less a goal post.
[deleted]
There is no solid line separating ads from other content. What about a positive review for a game? Is that not an ad because the reviewer wasn’t paid? But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)?
There are many other examples. It’s much more a matter of degree than just saying “ads bad”.
There are many other examples. It’s much more a matter of degree than just saying “ads bad”.
> But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)?
Yes, that's a well-established conflict of interest which is why there's supposed to be disclaimers whenever it happens
Yes, that's a well-established conflict of interest which is why there's supposed to be disclaimers whenever it happens
Ironically what you are suggesting here would erode privacy.
How so?
unless you can uniquely identify people such disclaimers would be ineffective and useless. for example what if I were paid to say something? how would you know if I were paid or not? if it's the honor system, then that'll trend to no disclosure to begin with - that's exactly why shilling is a thing, and why it'll never stop.
I wish I could upvote you more. I too think that advertisements are at best unethical, at worst downright evil. Just like organized religion, the ads are designed to distort the perceived reality into something that it isn't and part the fool and their money.
"Advertisements and marketing are immoral."
That's quite a position. Are you also taking the position that capitalism and commerce are immoral? Because you really can't have those things absent marketing.
At any rate, I can't agree with this. The way that ads/marketing are done can be immoral, for sure -- but you also have PSAs against littering or simply marketing / advertising for any number of things that I'd hope we'd all agree are good ("Spay and neuter your pets," "Don't drink & drive") or at worst neutral ("Now available: The Beatles 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper CD").
Promoting a thing is not the same thing as "psychological manipulation" unless you consider "making a person or persons aware of something" is manipulation.
One might even argue that marketing is a good when the thing is something that people benefit from being aware of. Is marketing open source immoral? Fitness, as a concept? Ads for animal adoption are immoral?
At any rate - ads are a symptom of consumerism and capitalism, so as long as that's the system we exist in they're going to be present.
That's quite a position. Are you also taking the position that capitalism and commerce are immoral? Because you really can't have those things absent marketing.
At any rate, I can't agree with this. The way that ads/marketing are done can be immoral, for sure -- but you also have PSAs against littering or simply marketing / advertising for any number of things that I'd hope we'd all agree are good ("Spay and neuter your pets," "Don't drink & drive") or at worst neutral ("Now available: The Beatles 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper CD").
Promoting a thing is not the same thing as "psychological manipulation" unless you consider "making a person or persons aware of something" is manipulation.
One might even argue that marketing is a good when the thing is something that people benefit from being aware of. Is marketing open source immoral? Fitness, as a concept? Ads for animal adoption are immoral?
At any rate - ads are a symptom of consumerism and capitalism, so as long as that's the system we exist in they're going to be present.
Wow, man, your mental gymnastics are impressive and your gaslighting skills are formidable.
Are you saying that greed and straight-out lying is moral, and just because there is a powerful and dangerous minority of super-greedy liars it actually is the only means of social existence? LOL. LMAO even.
"Ads are just making people aware of something" is either a five-year old understanding of what ads are, or a deliberate lie.
Are you saying that greed and straight-out lying is moral, and just because there is a powerful and dangerous minority of super-greedy liars it actually is the only means of social existence? LOL. LMAO even.
"Ads are just making people aware of something" is either a five-year old understanding of what ads are, or a deliberate lie.
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.
I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point.
It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.
I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point.
It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.
> It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.
I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_.
I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline.
What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.
I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_.
I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline.
What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.
You can have your restricted concerns, I'm going to keep taking issue with (a) data collected being data that can get accidental public backups, and (b) ads being an unwanted imposition on my attention.
The solution to both of those problems is to not use Instagram, which isn't a great solution, but at least it's possible.
However, if Instagram is collecting browsing history and location data on me from some other source, it's hard/impossible for me to avoid.
However, if Instagram is collecting browsing history and location data on me from some other source, it's hard/impossible for me to avoid.
Time to check Ad Topics in Chrome Settings to see what information advertisers are getting from me...
Nope, nothing I wouldn't wouldn't share publicly. Just like every other time I checked.
(I won't copy it all here since I'm on mobile, but otherwise I would. it's all very bland topics like "Online Communities.")
It's technically targeted advertising, but only barely. I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.
Nope, nothing I wouldn't wouldn't share publicly. Just like every other time I checked.
(I won't copy it all here since I'm on mobile, but otherwise I would. it's all very bland topics like "Online Communities.")
It's technically targeted advertising, but only barely. I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.
> I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.
The key word here is "voluntarily". My objection is having data about me, my machines, or my use of my machines being collected without my consent.
If I have given informed consent, there is no problem.
The key word here is "voluntarily". My objection is having data about me, my machines, or my use of my machines being collected without my consent.
If I have given informed consent, there is no problem.
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.
Ads are, at best, malware for the brain.
What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.
Ads are, at best, malware for the brain.
What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.
> If you don't think that all ads are bad... then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.
No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.
Advertising has value in letting people know about your product. If you're selling locally, you rent a billboard on some street crossing, or a banner at a mall, or you buy a sponsorship at a local event because you think your target demographic will be there. At a demographic level, not individuals.
On the Internet, geography translates to maybe using zipcode from an IP address, and demographics translates to choosing which websites ("publishers") to put ads on.
And that should be it, that's fair and should get you enough bang for your buck.
Putting cameras in people's homes, listening to their conversations, following them around in their cars, stalking their relationships, tracking their voting records, etc should not be an acceptable way of increasing the efficiency of the targeting.
Of course you would make more money with this kind of spying (as what happens today). But this kind of invasion has great societal costs to privacy, and subsequently to freedoms, and should never be justifiable.
No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.
Advertising has value in letting people know about your product. If you're selling locally, you rent a billboard on some street crossing, or a banner at a mall, or you buy a sponsorship at a local event because you think your target demographic will be there. At a demographic level, not individuals.
On the Internet, geography translates to maybe using zipcode from an IP address, and demographics translates to choosing which websites ("publishers") to put ads on.
And that should be it, that's fair and should get you enough bang for your buck.
Putting cameras in people's homes, listening to their conversations, following them around in their cars, stalking their relationships, tracking their voting records, etc should not be an acceptable way of increasing the efficiency of the targeting.
Of course you would make more money with this kind of spying (as what happens today). But this kind of invasion has great societal costs to privacy, and subsequently to freedoms, and should never be justifiable.
> No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.
This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine.
But it's also really dumb.
Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup? I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?
There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads. Are those capabilities used 100% for good causes? of course not. But it at least does something for society, unlike a weird moral finger wagging.
This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine.
But it's also really dumb.
Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup? I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?
There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads. Are those capabilities used 100% for good causes? of course not. But it at least does something for society, unlike a weird moral finger wagging.
If targeting can be done without spying on people, then fine. But it's the spying that's the problem. Whether or not the data obtained without people's consent can be used for good purposes doesn't justify it.
> This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine.
The moral line is that you do not spy on people in order to "improve" their "ad experience". Geography is one way to do it that's then acceptable.
> Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup?
If a man enters a lingerie shop, he will expect to see ads for tampons. If a woman enters a man's cigar club (or whatever), she will expect to see ads for a prostate cancer checkup.
"Why" is because the only possible way to do otherwise is by spying on them. Anything that requires customizing ads per person inherently requires the spying.
> There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads.
And there it is. You see it as an optimization problem of "value and productivity", and there is no place for privacy in that equation.
Much like a factory dumping its chemical waste in the town's river. A lot of "value" is created during the process.
The moral line is that you do not spy on people in order to "improve" their "ad experience". Geography is one way to do it that's then acceptable.
> Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup?
If a man enters a lingerie shop, he will expect to see ads for tampons. If a woman enters a man's cigar club (or whatever), she will expect to see ads for a prostate cancer checkup.
"Why" is because the only possible way to do otherwise is by spying on them. Anything that requires customizing ads per person inherently requires the spying.
> There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads.
And there it is. You see it as an optimization problem of "value and productivity", and there is no place for privacy in that equation.
Much like a factory dumping its chemical waste in the town's river. A lot of "value" is created during the process.
> Why should men see ads for tampons?
Why do tampon ads need to exist? It’s something you purchase on a regular interval.
> Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup?
Why would there be any ads at all for prostate cancer checkups? This should be brought up by your doctor in an appointment with you. Who would even pay for and produce such ads?
> I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?
A stadium holds what, ~70k people, <0.05% of the US population? The massive adtech infrastructure privacy invasion just to avoid potentially showing an ad to someone who won’t convert on that incremental impression.
None of the arguments for hyper-targeted ads are compelling in the slightest.
Why do tampon ads need to exist? It’s something you purchase on a regular interval.
> Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup?
Why would there be any ads at all for prostate cancer checkups? This should be brought up by your doctor in an appointment with you. Who would even pay for and produce such ads?
> I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?
A stadium holds what, ~70k people, <0.05% of the US population? The massive adtech infrastructure privacy invasion just to avoid potentially showing an ad to someone who won’t convert on that incremental impression.
None of the arguments for hyper-targeted ads are compelling in the slightest.
Very strange that you consider ads based on geography as fine. That's the one I am most concerned about, primarily with political and PR-focused advertising which are often heavily geographic based. I care extremely little about "products" advertising.
Good point and a real concern. I considered an analogy to the physical world and used that: if you are a local business and want people to know about your product, you can rent a billboard in the town square, or buy a spot on a local TV channel.
The idea is that as long as it is coarse-grained geography it was less damaging.
But would that make it dangerous for political and ideological mass "influencing"? Maybe you're right. If we ever get a chance to have laws and regulate it, maybe allowing certain categories only.
The idea is that as long as it is coarse-grained geography it was less damaging.
But would that make it dangerous for political and ideological mass "influencing"? Maybe you're right. If we ever get a chance to have laws and regulate it, maybe allowing certain categories only.
If you look at how Google is approaching competing with companies like Apple on Android, or Firefox and Safari on Chrome. It's obvious that the overarching theme of the company is to copy all their security upgrades immediately and create watered down versions of the privacy technology, so they can appear to care about your privacy and compete, but their solutions simply aren't very good at protecting your privacy and there really isn't any good reason other than the truth that they want to appear to care about your privacy, while controlling and developing their technology in such a way that it doesn't protect your privacy as well as the competition or just gives only them access to the info, but protects it from others.
Firefox and Safari blocked third party cookies ages ago.
It's obvoius that we cannot just trust google to control important technologies the way we used to and need consider the competition if we care about privacy.
Firefox and Safari blocked third party cookies ages ago.
It's obvoius that we cannot just trust google to control important technologies the way we used to and need consider the competition if we care about privacy.
> If you don't think that all ads are bad
And you don't think that user-based targeting is bad.
This is a huge parenthesis, that you forgot to put on the disclaimer. In fact, it's more important than what is there.
Besides:
> Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity
Yes, they act as if they believe. What is either incredibly negligent or fraudulent.
And you don't think that user-based targeting is bad.
This is a huge parenthesis, that you forgot to put on the disclaimer. In fact, it's more important than what is there.
Besides:
> Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity
Yes, they act as if they believe. What is either incredibly negligent or fraudulent.
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then
I don't think it's at all unreasonable not to accept this premise in the first place.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable not to accept this premise in the first place.
> Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting".
This often happens with government laws and policies too, in the U.S.
Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?
This often happens with government laws and policies too, in the U.S.
Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?
> Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?
I don't think this is a good argument, because the same argument can be used against technological advancement of any kind.
For example with genetics research that addresses diseases - you can say "ah but even though the current government is responsible, who is to say that we won't get a bad govt in 20 years who will use this capability to use bioweapons that perform genocide".
We shouldn't build factories, because the next generation can convert those factories into ones that make guns?
No, we have to count on each generation of humans to be responsible. This worked for the last ~5000 years of civilization or so, and I think it's the way it has to keep working
I don't think this is a good argument, because the same argument can be used against technological advancement of any kind.
For example with genetics research that addresses diseases - you can say "ah but even though the current government is responsible, who is to say that we won't get a bad govt in 20 years who will use this capability to use bioweapons that perform genocide".
We shouldn't build factories, because the next generation can convert those factories into ones that make guns?
No, we have to count on each generation of humans to be responsible. This worked for the last ~5000 years of civilization or so, and I think it's the way it has to keep working
When I was in Google Ads, someone explained to me that Search ads were 10x more profitable than banner ads. The reason is the search tells you something about what the user wants. Our canonical example was "flowers." It's perfectly reasonable to show you ads for 1-800-FLOWERS.
Of course, over time that's been corrupted so you see only ads. Don't bother beating that dead horse.
All the "targeted advertisement" efforts are to figure out what you want when you didn't say anything, and reduce that 10x to 5x or less. I don't see a good reason not to prohibit those, if people object to them. There's no right to make infinite money off the Internet.
Of course, over time that's been corrupted so you see only ads. Don't bother beating that dead horse.
All the "targeted advertisement" efforts are to figure out what you want when you didn't say anything, and reduce that 10x to 5x or less. I don't see a good reason not to prohibit those, if people object to them. There's no right to make infinite money off the Internet.
> Our canonical example was "flowers." It's perfectly reasonable to show you ads for 1-800-FLOWERS.
It still results in strong perverse incentives. If I search for $company I don't want to have the top hit be $rival_company
It still results in strong perverse incentives. If I search for $company I don't want to have the top hit be $rival_company
As long as it's the top ad spot, why not? That's basically the only relevant ad when you search $company -- "Hey, we also do that."
Google puts ads above real search results, so the top ad spot is above everything else too. And this is how you get lovely workflows like "google for VLC, click top result, get malware"
Why would you want to see results ranked by advertiser's ability to pay rather than a neutral metric of relevance?
This shouldn't surprise you: Google ranks them by the money IT stands to make, which includes the probability you'll click on it.
Relevance presumably increases p(click).
"advertiser's ability to pay" has no bearing on things. If the advertiser does not pass credit checks, it doesn't even enter the auction.
Relevance presumably increases p(click).
"advertiser's ability to pay" has no bearing on things. If the advertiser does not pass credit checks, it doesn't even enter the auction.
It could work only if advertiser pays per click instead of per show. Is pay-per-click the only option in Google?
There also is clickbait.
There also is clickbait.
(With the caveat that I've been out for a while, so things could have changed)
Search Ads are pay-per-click (or conversion now? Not sure)
All others are pay-per-impression.
conversions are what the advertiser really cares about, but they're hard for Google to be sure about. And what if you see the ad today but buy it next week in the store?
Search Ads are pay-per-click (or conversion now? Not sure)
All others are pay-per-impression.
conversions are what the advertiser really cares about, but they're hard for Google to be sure about. And what if you see the ad today but buy it next week in the store?
> neutral metric of relevance
Organic search? Corrupted by SEO, so not neutral. The advertiser's ability or willingness to pay, is at least something of relevance? It reveals at least someone has the product you want, and possibly a deal.
Organic search? Corrupted by SEO, so not neutral. The advertiser's ability or willingness to pay, is at least something of relevance? It reveals at least someone has the product you want, and possibly a deal.
Why do you think that organic search is so more corrupted by SEO than ability to pay is relevant, that neutral ranking is noticeably more relevant than ad ranking?
there's a ML model that ranks ads relative to a query. Contractors get paid to provide the "ground truth."
You can read about how it was in 2008-10 here:
https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-ads
Undoubtedly it's different now.
You can read about how it was in 2008-10 here:
https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-ads
Undoubtedly it's different now.
One argument would be - my WILLINGNESS to pay for an ad is driven by my assumption of its relevance to you.
It can also be driven by level of my wealth, so a business A might be willing to pay more for an ad for its product than business B despite less assumed relevance, then ranking would not reflect assumed relevance.
if the probability of a click is zero, you won't be shown no matter how much you bid.
p(click) is an estimate, of course, but you'd reasonably expect that Google has gotten pretty good at that.
p(click) is an estimate, of course, but you'd reasonably expect that Google has gotten pretty good at that.
I've gotten good deals searching for one company and getting an ad from another VC-funded company in the same market offering a large discount.
When I was at Google I almost got in trouble a couple of times by asking if Google might have a monopoly. I was told to delete messages and to never say "The M Word".
disclosure: work at Google
This makes sense if your genuine perspective is that you don't have a monopoly.
Like if I sent a bunch of emails saying "Hey guys, we are making great progress on committing genocide" - people would say "wtf man, we don't commit genocide, we just make software, why are you talking like that?"
Then you're all like "shhh don't say the G word..."
I'm not sure what you did in the company, but unless you had a VP+ level position, how are you qualified to know whether Google has a monopoly or not? Like, how do you have omniscient data on what competitors sales look like? You're just speculating in an unhealthy way. And that's why people told you to be quiet.
This makes sense if your genuine perspective is that you don't have a monopoly.
Like if I sent a bunch of emails saying "Hey guys, we are making great progress on committing genocide" - people would say "wtf man, we don't commit genocide, we just make software, why are you talking like that?"
Then you're all like "shhh don't say the G word..."
I'm not sure what you did in the company, but unless you had a VP+ level position, how are you qualified to know whether Google has a monopoly or not? Like, how do you have omniscient data on what competitors sales look like? You're just speculating in an unhealthy way. And that's why people told you to be quiet.
Actually, I reject the argument from qualifications. (That doesn't mean he was right to say what he said.) Having climbed the greasy pole of management doesn't make you on expert on anything except pole-climbing.
You can read in the trade press what market share everyone has. Judging whether a company is or isn't a monopoly is something anyone can do, although if you're not the judge you have no impact.
You can read in the trade press what market share everyone has. Judging whether a company is or isn't a monopoly is something anyone can do, although if you're not the judge you have no impact.
VPs are not qualified because they climbed a corporate ladder - they are qualified because they are in charge a wider section of the business and are authorized to see data from that wide area.
If you're an L4 code, you're not going to getting a bunch of confidential data piped to you.
>You can read in the trade press what market share everyone has
This is exactly the point - some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise.
If you're an L4 code, you're not going to getting a bunch of confidential data piped to you.
>You can read in the trade press what market share everyone has
This is exactly the point - some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise.
as I said: saying it inside G is not cool.
This "confidential" data, though: I call BS. Maybe 40 years ago that was true. Not anymore. The "wider section of the business" : we're talking about a business that transcends G's internals.
Your snobbery is showing: "some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise."
"some jr associate" -- how dare those peasants have an opinion?
"sipping morning coffee" -- what does that have to do with anything?
This "confidential" data, though: I call BS. Maybe 40 years ago that was true. Not anymore. The "wider section of the business" : we're talking about a business that transcends G's internals.
Your snobbery is showing: "some jr associate sipping morning coffee and reading whatever news declaring Monopoly internally is not helpful in any way to the enterprise."
"some jr associate" -- how dare those peasants have an opinion?
"sipping morning coffee" -- what does that have to do with anything?
Yeah I am being snobby. Look at the root comment we are replying under.
Insinuating that they could not say the word “monopoly” could not be said because it was a giant conspiracy to keep it hush. It’s cringe.
Same energy as “that’s exactly what a guilty person would say”. Turns out, “I didn’t do it” is also exactly what an innocent person would say.
Insinuating that they could not say the word “monopoly” could not be said because it was a giant conspiracy to keep it hush. It’s cringe.
Same energy as “that’s exactly what a guilty person would say”. Turns out, “I didn’t do it” is also exactly what an innocent person would say.
Maybe I'm "cringe" sure.
I don't think what I experienced was an admission of guilt. There's a lot of different ways a company can exploit its market position inappropriately. And bringing up a sensitive topic like monopolies can make people uncomfortable because it's related to other ideas - like anti-competitive behavior. I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior. Granted, it was something well outside of his control so he's no risk to the free market.
My hope was that by asking about the topic people could confidently describe why Google had no monopolies and wasn't exploiting anything. I didn't get that at all so I stopped.
I don't think what I experienced was an admission of guilt. There's a lot of different ways a company can exploit its market position inappropriately. And bringing up a sensitive topic like monopolies can make people uncomfortable because it's related to other ideas - like anti-competitive behavior. I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior. Granted, it was something well outside of his control so he's no risk to the free market.
My hope was that by asking about the topic people could confidently describe why Google had no monopolies and wasn't exploiting anything. I didn't get that at all so I stopped.
The real reason is that in Discovery your email would come out. It's not that it makes anyone uncomfortable.
> I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior
But presumably that was in a face-to-face conversation, which would not be discovered. And "I don't recall" would be his answer if ever asked about it.
> I literally had a manager describe a tactic to me that would be illegal anti-competitive behavior
But presumably that was in a face-to-face conversation, which would not be discovered. And "I don't recall" would be his answer if ever asked about it.
> There's no right to make infinite money off the Internet.
I like this a lot. Google is massively profitable. The only argument in favor of continue to extract every cent they can off the market, is that we have a fiction of perpetual, constant growth. It should be 100% okay for a company to say “we’re super profitable, we’re going to tone it down now and focus on making our services better”.
I like this a lot. Google is massively profitable. The only argument in favor of continue to extract every cent they can off the market, is that we have a fiction of perpetual, constant growth. It should be 100% okay for a company to say “we’re super profitable, we’re going to tone it down now and focus on making our services better”.
It's corporate religion: "Where is the growth coming from?"
At a certain size, the answer should be "It's not."
And then they get valued by their dividend yield. That IS boring, to some people.
At a certain size, the answer should be "It's not."
And then they get valued by their dividend yield. That IS boring, to some people.
So tired of the “[company] claims to support my definition of [topic] while advocating different version of [topic]”
Privacy is an ambiguous term. Probably no two of us agree on 100% of the implementation details. Yes, Google’s approach does not align with my desires. But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one.
How about “Google’s is lobbying for a weaker form of privacy than customers expect”?
Privacy is an ambiguous term. Probably no two of us agree on 100% of the implementation details. Yes, Google’s approach does not align with my desires. But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one.
How about “Google’s is lobbying for a weaker form of privacy than customers expect”?
> But I’m not arrogant enough to think my definition is the single correct one
I am arrogant enough to know what is acceptable to me, though, and to work towards that. Just like Google (or most anyone else) does, albeit Google outguns me by many orders of magnitude.
I am arrogant enough to know what is acceptable to me, though, and to work towards that. Just like Google (or most anyone else) does, albeit Google outguns me by many orders of magnitude.
The thing Google knows is that once the law decides what privacy means, neither Google nor you get to have your own definition anymore.
Sure we do. It's just not a definition encoded in law. But what the law says doesn't change my view of what's right and wrong.
If the law says I have no privacy whatsoever, all that would mean is that I need to put a great deal more effort into safeguarding my privacy.
If the law says I have no privacy whatsoever, all that would mean is that I need to put a great deal more effort into safeguarding my privacy.
It will however change whether you go to jail for acting on your beliefs of right and wrong.
Possibly, but that doesn't change anything.
Unless you're talking only about yourself, I can assure you, making "You go to jail for this" part of the equation definitely shapes aggregate societal behavior. Source: history.
And if push comes to shove, the American administration is less than 20,000 people. There are 300 million people in thin country and less than 20 million service members.
The people can take this country if they want it. It would be ugly but it's entirely possible.
The people can take this country if they want it. It would be ugly but it's entirely possible.
Oof. Your estimates of the power of 300 million people to overcome a military 20 million strong do not match mine. If we're assuming complete consolidation of groups (i.e. those 20 million wholly aligned against the 300 million)... Modern warfare is entirely asymmetric. It depends on how willing that military would be to deploy air power, bombs, and smart weapons. To say nothing of how much organization of such a resistance could be stymied by the simple expedient of shutting off the grid (electrical and communications) that could occur in an open civil war.
... in the abstract. I hardly imagine it'd come to a shooting war over something like the perpetual push-pull of figuring out what "privacy" is. That's a conversation that's been going on for hundreds of years.
... in the abstract. I hardly imagine it'd come to a shooting war over something like the perpetual push-pull of figuring out what "privacy" is. That's a conversation that's been going on for hundreds of years.
I wasn't talking about whether or not it shapes behavior. Of course it does. What I meant was that it doesn't change the point I was making, or the ethics of the situation.
This simply isn't true, but I am not surprised that such a statement comes from shadowgovt
Can you clarify what aspect isn't true? It is the nature of law to take informal behaviors and codify them into "legal" and "illegal." At that point, individual people's beliefs on a topic no longer hold full authority over what they may choose freely to do; the law dictates what one must or must not do.
(And that's just the behavioral aspect. The literal, legal aspect is that laws define terminology. From a legal standpoint, personal definitions are irrelevant when the law recognizes a definition in plain-letter).
(And that's just the behavioral aspect. The literal, legal aspect is that laws define terminology. From a legal standpoint, personal definitions are irrelevant when the law recognizes a definition in plain-letter).
I think that what isn't true is the notion that any law is permanent. Laws can and do get changed or even removed over time.
This is true. Laws are modified over time.
... the law rarely completely leaves the field once it has entered into regulating something previously unregulated. To do so is, generally, seen as returning an issue that needed the heavy hand of force back to the "chaos" of personal choices. So once the law replaces the murky, per-person-and-entity definition of "privacy" with a legal definition, that definition will stick.
I expect, for example, any law latching what data companies may and may not keep to be very, very sticky. The details may change, but I find it highly unlikely that the government, having crafted such a law, will return to the condition of "On this, the law remains silent; it is up to the corporations what they collect and the people what they yield," which is (mostly, with some notable exceptions) the status quo.
Can you think of examples where something was regulated and then the government retuned it to an unregulated state? Closest example I can think of was Prohibition; we added and removed an entire amendment, and even then, the current state is "a combination of state and federal authority regulates alcohol," stepped down from a ban.
... the law rarely completely leaves the field once it has entered into regulating something previously unregulated. To do so is, generally, seen as returning an issue that needed the heavy hand of force back to the "chaos" of personal choices. So once the law replaces the murky, per-person-and-entity definition of "privacy" with a legal definition, that definition will stick.
I expect, for example, any law latching what data companies may and may not keep to be very, very sticky. The details may change, but I find it highly unlikely that the government, having crafted such a law, will return to the condition of "On this, the law remains silent; it is up to the corporations what they collect and the people what they yield," which is (mostly, with some notable exceptions) the status quo.
Can you think of examples where something was regulated and then the government retuned it to an unregulated state? Closest example I can think of was Prohibition; we added and removed an entire amendment, and even then, the current state is "a combination of state and federal authority regulates alcohol," stepped down from a ban.
Regardless of who wrote this, I find it hard to trust an article written by a direct competitor to the company being scrutinized -- there is a clear conflict of interest here.
The adversarial system is the best we've come with in law and government. It seems, relying on opponents to keep each other honest, is a tool worth using.
You're not gonna like how our justice system works if you think the adversarial approach discounts the results.
But I'm not a judge and this isn't court.
The adversarial system has a time and a place, but in this case it's not like Google ever publishes blog posts on why ProtonMail may or may not be bad, and it would be quite impossible for them to debunk every accusation against them.
This isn't the adversarial system as much as it is just one company making marketing material for themselves by attacking another company.
The adversarial system has a time and a place, but in this case it's not like Google ever publishes blog posts on why ProtonMail may or may not be bad, and it would be quite impossible for them to debunk every accusation against them.
This isn't the adversarial system as much as it is just one company making marketing material for themselves by attacking another company.
You’re right, Google’s stalking and manipulation conflict with my interests.
"...Google and tech industry allies responded with a massive lobbying campaign... convince lawmakers banning targeted ads would hurt the global economy. The gambit worked, and the draft law no longer threatens Google’s advertising."
Lol, sounds like Google and the tech industry used targeted advertising to prevent a ban on targeted advertising.
Lol, sounds like Google and the tech industry used targeted advertising to prevent a ban on targeted advertising.
Google is the worst offender in creating the current state of zero privacy.
Real privacy is privacy by default. Opt out is bullshit and everyone knows it. Just try to opt out of information sharing for every service you have. It’s simply not possible. Why don’t our lawmakers advocate for real privacy? Because powerful tech advertising lobbies prevent it.
Google doesn’t even respect opt out.
There’s no role for user privacy advocate at google . There’s no room for the discussion. They regularly and actively subvert even the weak privacy laws we have here.
Notice how they nag you forever to log into google maps? That’s so they can share your location data across all properties. They aren’t legally allowed to do it unless there’s a reason. The login service is their reason. How do I know this? They said it openly. Is this conscious, active and continuous violation of privacy law? I’d say it is.
Google doesn’t even respect opt out.
There’s no role for user privacy advocate at google . There’s no room for the discussion. They regularly and actively subvert even the weak privacy laws we have here.
Notice how they nag you forever to log into google maps? That’s so they can share your location data across all properties. They aren’t legally allowed to do it unless there’s a reason. The login service is their reason. How do I know this? They said it openly. Is this conscious, active and continuous violation of privacy law? I’d say it is.
Reminds me of 1984.
Google is the Ministry of Privacy.
Minister of Privacy: “Let us gather to celebrate a trillion dollars of profit in one quarter. Our goal is to harness the world’s data and exploit it. Surveillance is Privacy”
—
Minister of Peace: “Comrades, our Ministry has an important duty to ensure the perpetual war that maintains our control. War is peace.”
Minister of Plenty: “Let us not forget our crucial role of the in rationing resources and keeping the populace in a state of need. Scarcity is Abundance.”
Minister of Truth: “The past is mutable, and it is our duty to control the narrative. Ignorance is Strength.”
Minister of Love: “Our goal is to eliminate dissent and ensure the loyalty of our citizens. Fear is Love.”
Google is the Ministry of Privacy.
Minister of Privacy: “Let us gather to celebrate a trillion dollars of profit in one quarter. Our goal is to harness the world’s data and exploit it. Surveillance is Privacy”
—
Minister of Peace: “Comrades, our Ministry has an important duty to ensure the perpetual war that maintains our control. War is peace.”
Minister of Plenty: “Let us not forget our crucial role of the in rationing resources and keeping the populace in a state of need. Scarcity is Abundance.”
Minister of Truth: “The past is mutable, and it is our duty to control the narrative. Ignorance is Strength.”
Minister of Love: “Our goal is to eliminate dissent and ensure the loyalty of our citizens. Fear is Love.”
The article pretty much gets Google's philosophy on this correct. Google, having cut their teeth on being pioneers in search in a world where people were still figuring out what the consequences of vastly collating human data at scale were, found themselves all too often the moral and philosophical pioneers as well, whether or not they wanted to be.
As a consequence, they have heavy skepticism about both government and public capacity to self-regulate here. Neither group has usually done either the deep reflection or trial by fire that Google has in figuring out all of the parameters of the problem, all of the consequences of the decisions, etc.
In short, they trust themselves more than they trust anybody else and they put their lobbying money in places that allow them to maximize acting on that self-trust. They'd rather be making mistakes and correcting them than forced to make what they perceive to be the wrong decision by bad ideas baked into unmovable law. Good bad or indifferent, that's where they're coming from.
(And to be clear, this is not an endorsement of their position. I think people who believe that there is a gap between that self-image and of the reality of the decisions they've made as de facto arbiters of privacy online have plenty of evidence to bring to the table to support their position.)
As a consequence, they have heavy skepticism about both government and public capacity to self-regulate here. Neither group has usually done either the deep reflection or trial by fire that Google has in figuring out all of the parameters of the problem, all of the consequences of the decisions, etc.
In short, they trust themselves more than they trust anybody else and they put their lobbying money in places that allow them to maximize acting on that self-trust. They'd rather be making mistakes and correcting them than forced to make what they perceive to be the wrong decision by bad ideas baked into unmovable law. Good bad or indifferent, that's where they're coming from.
(And to be clear, this is not an endorsement of their position. I think people who believe that there is a gap between that self-image and of the reality of the decisions they've made as de facto arbiters of privacy online have plenty of evidence to bring to the table to support their position.)
Basically everyone I know and most people I see on HN: I don't like ads and also I won't pay for content/a service.
So what're their options, then? People get real, reeeeeal mad that YT offers premium as if for some reason they deserve to use things like Youtube for free?
Granted, if we actually taxed the rich and focussed money on more important stuff yeah we could totally have all of these service for free, sponsored by tax dollars. But that is _never_ gonna happen as long as we're dragging the chains of evolution behind us.
So what're their options, then? People get real, reeeeeal mad that YT offers premium as if for some reason they deserve to use things like Youtube for free?
Granted, if we actually taxed the rich and focussed money on more important stuff yeah we could totally have all of these service for free, sponsored by tax dollars. But that is _never_ gonna happen as long as we're dragging the chains of evolution behind us.
[deleted]
Google supporting privacy… lol
Google's business model is such that it needs to invade privacy in order to make money. It's also made up of human beings who are subject to self-serving bias (believing that they have no bad intentions, therefore nothing will go wrong). So yeah, they're going to lobby for less privacy and claim that they want more of it and feel just fine about doing that.
When Google does it, it's fine. When others do it, it's "Invading Your Privacy!!!"
Ever imagined a tech giant with a "don't be evil" mantra?
Google is a big company. That's why it has conflicting ideas about privacy... They can't all talk to eachother there!
After all, they're not evil, are they?
Google is a big company. That's why it has conflicting ideas about privacy... They can't all talk to eachother there!
After all, they're not evil, are they?
Privacy washing: half of these commenters claim to support privacy while whining about financial privacy under any post involving cryptocurrencies
Lol im using https://searx.be now
If you accept free speech then you accept advertisements. If you accept advertisements, then you might as well accept the obfuscation to preserve some semblance of "privacy."
Only the naive believe it's possible to not have advertisements. Advertisements even existed in Ancient Rome.
Only the naive believe it's possible to not have advertisements. Advertisements even existed in Ancient Rome.
> then you might as well accept the obfuscation to preserve some semblance of "privacy."
I don't accept Google's approach because it is intended to reduce my privacy from them. They are not trying to preserve some semblance of privacy, they are trying to preserve some semblance of their ability to spy on us.
I reject their position entirely.
I don't accept Google's approach because it is intended to reduce my privacy from them. They are not trying to preserve some semblance of privacy, they are trying to preserve some semblance of their ability to spy on us.
I reject their position entirely.
I accept free speech as in I am free to listen to any speech of my choosing without interference from a third party. I do not accept that I have to hear any specific speech. The fact that reality lacks a good filter is a very serious bug that I hope gets fixed immediately.
Freedom to speak is not freedom to hire goons to shove it down people's throats.
indeed!
https://www.learnancientrome.com/were-there-ads-in-ancient-r...
> In 3000 BC, a slaveholder in Thebes, Egypt created the first-ever written ad. [..] The slaveholder was trying to find a runaway slave while also promoting their weaving shop.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...
> Even David Ogilvy, widely considered the father of modern advertising, expressed his disdain for the medium back in 1963. “Man is at his vilest when he erects a billboard,” Ogilvy wrote. “When I retire from Madison Avenue, I am going to start a secret society of masked vigilantes who will travel around the world on silent motor bicycles, chopping down posters at the dark of the moon.”
> In 3000 BC, a slaveholder in Thebes, Egypt created the first-ever written ad. [..] The slaveholder was trying to find a runaway slave while also promoting their weaving shop.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...
> Even David Ogilvy, widely considered the father of modern advertising, expressed his disdain for the medium back in 1963. “Man is at his vilest when he erects a billboard,” Ogilvy wrote. “When I retire from Madison Avenue, I am going to start a secret society of masked vigilantes who will travel around the world on silent motor bicycles, chopping down posters at the dark of the moon.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same.. indeed. The guy only wanted to put a bandage on the gaping wound he inflicted after he'd decided he'd made enough money from it. Reminds me of all the software engineers that leave FANG companies to start foundations promoting ethical software.
What's naive about believing it's possible to have a society without ads? I understand why you have that myopic a view if Rome is as far back in civilization you're willing to go.
How's your work in adtech going? It seems only those who profit from ads are defending them.
How's your work in adtech going? It seems only those who profit from ads are defending them.
don't work on ads. society without ads is one without commerce. without commerce there's poverty and despair. not interested in that kind of life. if you don't like ads when do you go to a marketing forum?
Ancient Roman advertisements didn't send out flying airtags to follow all of the people who passed by and collate a bunch of extra data about where those people went, how long they spent there and at what times, what the purpose of those places was, how the social webs of all the people interconnected....
So clearly it's possible to advertise without tracking, we just innovated that benefit away.
So clearly it's possible to advertise without tracking, we just innovated that benefit away.
[deleted]
I do accept free speech and also I accept possibility to block all and any advertisements from showing on my devices.
Sure, but you can't block someone from saying, hey "Applications are open for Y Combinator Winter 2024". There you go, an advertisement, straight to your brain.
Sure I can. I can add filters for that or use hckrnews dot com
Free speech doesn’t protect people from causing harm. Advertising is inherently unethical and harmful.
Advertising is not inherently harmful, lol
Yes it is, it preloads the viewer with ideas the advertiser tells them, in an effort to get them to buy something.
That means they're trying to take resources from other people and profit. That's where the ethics fall to pieces.
That means they're trying to take resources from other people and profit. That's where the ethics fall to pieces.
that's not what advertising is. advertisements are promotions. promotions do not inherently involve purchasing something. simplest counter example to your point is an ad saying that you can get something for free without any purchase required. definitionally no harm could come from someone who took the offer.
That is 100% an ad. If it wasn't useful for advertising purposes why would the company do it? They also do it with the incentive to get you in the store and buying a bunch of stuff that isn't free. And if nothing else it's building brand recognition.
> definitionally no harm could come from someone who took the offer.
Such offers are usually sneaky ways to collect personal information. Whether or not you consider that "harm" depends on your worldview, but a lot of people do.
Such offers are usually sneaky ways to collect personal information. Whether or not you consider that "harm" depends on your worldview, but a lot of people do.
there are plenty of offers like that do not require you to give any personal information at all. go into any Costco and there are promotions for free samples. you can take them without even talking to the attendant. it's obviously an advertisement.
idk why people bother saying things easily proven to be false. it is true that some advertising is harmful, yes. it is not the case that advertising in general is inherently harmful. it only requires a single counter example to prove false.
idk why people bother saying things easily proven to be false. it is true that some advertising is harmful, yes. it is not the case that advertising in general is inherently harmful. it only requires a single counter example to prove false.
> it is not the case that advertising in general is inherently harmful.
I never claimed that it was.
But harmful/deceptive marketing is quite common. A decent rule of thumb is to consider all of it suspect.
I never claimed that it was.
But harmful/deceptive marketing is quite common. A decent rule of thumb is to consider all of it suspect.
It is not uncommon to abide by some regulation that you don't agree with while at the same time working to have the regulation removed.
Pro digital services act propaganda
Privacy is a myth in today's world. It has become a marketing anthem for many including Apple. If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.
Also do you realize everything you do offline is being collected as well - your credit card transactions (visa knows more about you than Google), camera at traffic stops or your favorite restaurants, government listening to your phone call, etc. etc.
Also do you realize everything you do offline is being collected as well - your credit card transactions (visa knows more about you than Google), camera at traffic stops or your favorite restaurants, government listening to your phone call, etc. etc.
> If you are using a product for free, you are giving something in return aka your data.
In Google’s case. In Apple’s case I’m giving them money for products and services. The money Apple makes from my data is meaningless when compared to Google’s M.O.
In Google’s case. In Apple’s case I’m giving them money for products and services. The money Apple makes from my data is meaningless when compared to Google’s M.O.
So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less?
Neither of them are particularly transparent or accountable from a privacy perspective. It's kinda funny that someone would acknowledge the helplessness of the present duopoly, then claim they feel safe inside the lion's cage because "I already fed him earlier".
Neither of them are particularly transparent or accountable from a privacy perspective. It's kinda funny that someone would acknowledge the helplessness of the present duopoly, then claim they feel safe inside the lion's cage because "I already fed him earlier".
In what ways are Apple and Google not transparent about their privacy practices ? I think both are quite clear and upfront about where the lines are, compared to pretty much everyone else.
Accountable is interesting - they are as accountable as any other company, and if anything, both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.
Accountable is interesting - they are as accountable as any other company, and if anything, both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.
> both are under much closer scrutiny than anyone else, and have bigger reputational risks than anyone else.
People say this a lot, but why does nobody care so far?
I'd posit the simple answer is "it's easier not to", but also that governments are happy to reinforce a duopoly they control. We already know both Google and Apple are PRISM members as well as involved in the international FIVE-EYES network. That never really stained their reputation, despite being a universal backdoor. Google has exploited and broken YouTube several times over, but nobody stopped using it in objection. Apple moved their servers into government-owned Chinese datacenters, and nobody protested it financially.
The threat to their actual reputations is almost non-existent, from what I've seen. If people cared, we wouldn't be fixing FAANG's problems 10 years after-the-fact.
People say this a lot, but why does nobody care so far?
I'd posit the simple answer is "it's easier not to", but also that governments are happy to reinforce a duopoly they control. We already know both Google and Apple are PRISM members as well as involved in the international FIVE-EYES network. That never really stained their reputation, despite being a universal backdoor. Google has exploited and broken YouTube several times over, but nobody stopped using it in objection. Apple moved their servers into government-owned Chinese datacenters, and nobody protested it financially.
The threat to their actual reputations is almost non-existent, from what I've seen. If people cared, we wouldn't be fixing FAANG's problems 10 years after-the-fact.
> So... same captive situation, you're just hoping they exploit you less?
I don't feel very captive. Plus Apple devices have great resale value should Apple's interests ever stop aligning with mine.
I don't feel very captive. Plus Apple devices have great resale value should Apple's interests ever stop aligning with mine.
I don't feel very captive on my Samsung handset either. All that emotion does very little to let me read the modem firmware, much less ensure the privacy of the device. That's what OP's point was, that you were responding to. They were saying that privacy is always a reductive argument; your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe. That feels more like you're addressing your own insecurity instead of what the commenter actually wrote.
> …your response is that paying for things makes you feel safe.
That's an interesting interpretation, but what I actually did was point out the elephant in the room — that Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Given two business models — one based on monetizing your data and behavior, the other based on accepting money for goods and services — which would you say is more pro-privacy?
That's an interesting interpretation, but what I actually did was point out the elephant in the room — that Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Given two business models — one based on monetizing your data and behavior, the other based on accepting money for goods and services — which would you say is more pro-privacy?
> which would you say is more pro-privacy?
Whichever one you trust with less data. Neither of them can be held to a bar of inscrutability because both of them manufacture surveillance devices. You can't even deny it.
> Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Their business model has nothing to do with the topic of privacy-washing though. That's why I responded to you in the first place; your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense. It's a quaint fairy-tale you tell yourself to justify storing sensitive data with them. I'm not going to jostle you awake, but I am going to remind you that they're no more transparent in their approach than Google. If anything, your original comment highlights just how effective the duopoly is; both of these adtech companies are being treated like Marvel vs DC instead of Moloch vs Satan.
So... as far as privacywashing is concerned, I'd trust neither of them. They're both proven snakes who lie about their opaque infrastructure and do little to contribute to society's collective safety, online or individually.
Whichever one you trust with less data. Neither of them can be held to a bar of inscrutability because both of them manufacture surveillance devices. You can't even deny it.
> Apple's business model is completely different than Google's, and so painting them both with the same reductive label doesn't make sense.
Their business model has nothing to do with the topic of privacy-washing though. That's why I responded to you in the first place; your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense. It's a quaint fairy-tale you tell yourself to justify storing sensitive data with them. I'm not going to jostle you awake, but I am going to remind you that they're no more transparent in their approach than Google. If anything, your original comment highlights just how effective the duopoly is; both of these adtech companies are being treated like Marvel vs DC instead of Moloch vs Satan.
So... as far as privacywashing is concerned, I'd trust neither of them. They're both proven snakes who lie about their opaque infrastructure and do little to contribute to society's collective safety, online or individually.
> …your assertion that these revenue models matter is nonsense.
I'm fascinated by this take, and I understand your comments better knowing that this is your honest POV. Although we'll never agree, keep fighting the good fight!
I'm fascinated by this take, and I understand your comments better knowing that this is your honest POV. Although we'll never agree, keep fighting the good fight!
Fair enough! We'll agree to disagree, maybe our paths will cross again in the future when we know more about both companies.
This can be changed. It becomes a lot harder to track people when they get pissed off and destroy your surveillance network.
None of the conditions in this situation are ironclad.
None of the conditions in this situation are ironclad.
lo and behold: https://karl-voit.at/cloud/
Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved.
If you don't think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It's better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don't care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense.
The following only makes sense if you buy this argument:
The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it's not worth it.
Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". The Chrome topics API and mathematical/statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies/data brokers.
That being said, I don't love the concentration of power (that's why the DOJ is going after them) - I'd much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.