If we’re serious about transforming the conversation around this issue, we’ve got to be more intentional with the words we choose. Let’s call a spade a spade: labeling them as “personalized ads” is a gross understatement.
It’s more than that. It’s like someone constantly lurking behind you, watching every move you make, and getting into the private spaces of your mind. It isn’t mere content tailoring—it’s relentless stalking and a brazen assault on our psyche.
It’s theft is what it is. Personal data has value - so much value that companies like Google and Facebook have used solely data to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. These companies take our data for free, tell us it’s so worthless it isn’t worth paying us, and then they make pure profit. We might not know how to do what they do with the data, but you can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts; we should be paid our fair share for every data point they collect.
People on sites like this really need to understand that for good or bad we are a vocal minority. People by and large understand “if you aren’t paying for it you’re the product”. Many people have come to terms with this be it reddit, or Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc.
Does it make it right? Or course it doesn’t.
But I seriously don’t know, outside of a serious privacy breach involving hundreds of deaths, how do we effectively change the narrative in a way the masses can not only consume but understand?
I’m in my echo chamber here but at the same time I’ve come to terms that if it’s online expect it to be sold and nothing is private.
I disagree with you there, what people need to understand - the masses in general - is that this is a completely new and deeply flawed way for human beings to trade value between each other. One where the things one party is giving up are poorly defined, and they don’t get anything in return or have any room to negotiate. Hell, it isn’t even really a transaction, they just invite you in and then rummage through your pockets.
We have a long-established set of rules for forming deals, called contract law, that we’ve developed over thousands of years. Mass commercial data collection flouts the core principles of this.
I think a flat one time fee per access is fine, so long as it’s proportional to the sales they make. Data has a value with respect to time anyway, new data is more valuable than old data, even if the data is the same, so it’s not like they’ll just be getting it one time.
I agree with you but let’s cut the hyperbole please? It is not “a brazen assault on our psyche”. Ain’t no one of sound mind seeking out a therapist for trauma because reddit changes it TOS.
I think they are an assault on free will. Ads aren’t well reasoned arguments for the purchase of a product or service; they’re whatever they need to be to get you to change your behavior. If they have to scare, shame, trick, etc. they’ll do it.
Just out of curiosity how old are you? My sense is your opinion is probably shared by those younger people who came of age during the beginning of the death throws of cable.
I’m not saying your opinion is wrong for you. But I’m 46 now. I grew up inundated by commercials. They have always done all those things you mention. We were raised in an environment where media literacy included commercials allowing us to better see and smell the bullshit. Maybe that is what is lacking?
They are definitely not an “assault on free will” as you put it. Advertising is one of the oldest industries known to man and it will continue to exist and evolve.
That said, you are very correct in that it has gotten worse in recent years. This is predominantly (I feel) because government has stopped regulating specifically what is marketed to kids (thanks 1980’s!). There is also an angle that we stopped teaching media literacy like we used to.
I’m in my late thirties, actually. I think the difference in the ads we were exposed to compared to young people today is that nearly all of ours were broadly targeted. ie there was no micro targeting or anything really tailored to the individual outside of direct mail. We all watched the same commercials, you know?
Modern ad tech is much less “spray and pray” but as to what difference that makes vis-a-vis people’s ability to see BS, idk. I’d imagine the proportion of young people who are skeptical of advertising hasn’t changed much but the effectiveness of ads on those who are susceptible to it has increased. But again, I’m just talking out my ass here haha.
But all ads share the goal of altering your behavior to their own ends. Isn’t that in and of itself a reduction of your free will? An idea or thought you might have had is supplanted by one placed there by an advertiser, right?
Maybe this is where we differ then. I agree with everything you’re saying but at the same time in no way do I feel like my choice to choose is being taken away. I am not being forced to buy anything.
No, you’re not being forced of course. But advertisers are absolutely trying to bend your decision making process towards their products. That’s how ads work, right? They ultimately want you to spend money on something. Not saying you’re like Homer Simpson driving down the road stopping to obey all the billboards, I’m just saying it’s the inherent nature of ads. I didn’t mean to imply anything else
My intention wasn’t to equate ads with psychological trauma, but rather to emphasize the profound impact such invasive practices can have on our sense of privacy and autonomy. The terminology of ‘personalized ads’ can often obscure the magnitude of surveillance behind it. I understand that this might come across as hyperbolic to some, but it’s essential to articulate the depth of concern many feel.
If we’re serious about transforming the conversation around this issue, we’ve got to be more intentional with the words we choose. Let’s call a spade a spade: labeling them as “personalized ads” is a gross understatement.
It’s more than that. It’s like someone constantly lurking behind you, watching every move you make, and getting into the private spaces of your mind. It isn’t mere content tailoring—it’s relentless stalking and a brazen assault on our psyche.
We need to call it what it is.
It’s theft is what it is. Personal data has value - so much value that companies like Google and Facebook have used solely data to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. These companies take our data for free, tell us it’s so worthless it isn’t worth paying us, and then they make pure profit. We might not know how to do what they do with the data, but you can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts; we should be paid our fair share for every data point they collect.
People on sites like this really need to understand that for good or bad we are a vocal minority. People by and large understand “if you aren’t paying for it you’re the product”. Many people have come to terms with this be it reddit, or Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc.
Does it make it right? Or course it doesn’t.
But I seriously don’t know, outside of a serious privacy breach involving hundreds of deaths, how do we effectively change the narrative in a way the masses can not only consume but understand?
I’m in my echo chamber here but at the same time I’ve come to terms that if it’s online expect it to be sold and nothing is private.
I disagree with you there, what people need to understand - the masses in general - is that this is a completely new and deeply flawed way for human beings to trade value between each other. One where the things one party is giving up are poorly defined, and they don’t get anything in return or have any room to negotiate. Hell, it isn’t even really a transaction, they just invite you in and then rummage through your pockets.
We have a long-established set of rules for forming deals, called contract law, that we’ve developed over thousands of years. Mass commercial data collection flouts the core principles of this.
And every time they sell it, every transaction it leads to.
I think a flat one time fee per access is fine, so long as it’s proportional to the sales they make. Data has a value with respect to time anyway, new data is more valuable than old data, even if the data is the same, so it’s not like they’ll just be getting it one time.
I agree with you but let’s cut the hyperbole please? It is not “a brazen assault on our psyche”. Ain’t no one of sound mind seeking out a therapist for trauma because reddit changes it TOS.
I think they are an assault on free will. Ads aren’t well reasoned arguments for the purchase of a product or service; they’re whatever they need to be to get you to change your behavior. If they have to scare, shame, trick, etc. they’ll do it.
Just out of curiosity how old are you? My sense is your opinion is probably shared by those younger people who came of age during the beginning of the death throws of cable.
I’m not saying your opinion is wrong for you. But I’m 46 now. I grew up inundated by commercials. They have always done all those things you mention. We were raised in an environment where media literacy included commercials allowing us to better see and smell the bullshit. Maybe that is what is lacking?
They are definitely not an “assault on free will” as you put it. Advertising is one of the oldest industries known to man and it will continue to exist and evolve.
That said, you are very correct in that it has gotten worse in recent years. This is predominantly (I feel) because government has stopped regulating specifically what is marketed to kids (thanks 1980’s!). There is also an angle that we stopped teaching media literacy like we used to.
I’m in my late thirties, actually. I think the difference in the ads we were exposed to compared to young people today is that nearly all of ours were broadly targeted. ie there was no micro targeting or anything really tailored to the individual outside of direct mail. We all watched the same commercials, you know?
Modern ad tech is much less “spray and pray” but as to what difference that makes vis-a-vis people’s ability to see BS, idk. I’d imagine the proportion of young people who are skeptical of advertising hasn’t changed much but the effectiveness of ads on those who are susceptible to it has increased. But again, I’m just talking out my ass here haha.
But all ads share the goal of altering your behavior to their own ends. Isn’t that in and of itself a reduction of your free will? An idea or thought you might have had is supplanted by one placed there by an advertiser, right?
Maybe this is where we differ then. I agree with everything you’re saying but at the same time in no way do I feel like my choice to choose is being taken away. I am not being forced to buy anything.
No, you’re not being forced of course. But advertisers are absolutely trying to bend your decision making process towards their products. That’s how ads work, right? They ultimately want you to spend money on something. Not saying you’re like Homer Simpson driving down the road stopping to obey all the billboards, I’m just saying it’s the inherent nature of ads. I didn’t mean to imply anything else
My intention wasn’t to equate ads with psychological trauma, but rather to emphasize the profound impact such invasive practices can have on our sense of privacy and autonomy. The terminology of ‘personalized ads’ can often obscure the magnitude of surveillance behind it. I understand that this might come across as hyperbolic to some, but it’s essential to articulate the depth of concern many feel.
Just like The Police.
Sting has a lot to answer for