Just about any service thinks my SO is a man.
The algo seems to assume you agree with everything you watch, so you have to be mindful of not sending it mixed signals.
Does anyone know how much a private window really helps? It should cut out cookies but does not hide your IP address or clickstream patterns.
This reminds me that Skype insists on reminding me it’s Father’s Day. My father died when I was 11 and it’s still something that hurts even though I’m now in my 40s.
I previously disliked Skype because it’s terrible software, but the lack of any consideration or even any opt out makes me actively despise Skype. If I didn’t have to use it for work I’d drop it in a second.
I’m sure somebody, who’s had a perfect life, just didn’t think what effect a message like this might have. However, it does just seem like yet another example of how our industry can be so blinkered.
But if drive past a billboard or there's a poster on the door you're going through, you'll still see this and it will probably bring up bad feelings. Is that correct? Or is it just that the targeted ones are trying to be more personal, whilst getting it so wrong?
Unsubscribe. It's Amazon not some shady co. Amazon doesn't email me, or my wife.
I've not bought anything in 6 or so months from them. And I'm better for it. If I want 100% legit counterfeits, I can order from Aliexpress :-D
As a trans woman who repeatedly gets ads for period stuff, I feel much the same way.
At first, I thought it was cute. "Aww look, I even pass to the ad algorithm", and it eventually turned into "oh fuck, another reminder that my body is never going to work the way it was supposed to".
And it got stronger and stronger as time went on. It started with the occasional ad for pads in Gmail's promotions tab... then I started seeing ads for period products on Facebook... and then I repeatedly got ads inviting me to take part in clinical studies for painful periods and ads for all different kind of menstrual products, to the point where just loading Facebook would set off my dysphoria.
The parent appears to want to be recognised as "not a woman" (in this respect, at least), which goes against everything I've read from others before.
So, I was curious and wanted to know if the commenter thought this was common, or if they recognised it as peculiar to themselves.
Guess I'll never know because somehow probing peoples overt statements is unwanted here?
I'm pretty sure the complaint is treating woman as equivalent to people with periods, not treating the complaining person as a woman.
Not wanting to be treated as a person with a period isn't the same as not wanting to be treated as a woman or a female.
Sometimes for emotionally charged reasons.
(at least the last part is alluded to, but it comes through yet another link; if I want to follow many links, I go browse Wikipedia, not an article that purports to be a long-form essay about an interesting topic)
Edit: Had a bit of whiplash when I realised that this article was from seven years ago. How far we've come.
And this is why advertisers are invasive. If you feed the trolls (or advertisers in this case) they come back for more.
As an aside, it would be hilarious if this entire article was sponsored content for that crib.
(I'm not indemnifying you at all, just find the concept itself fascinating).
I don't mind seeing ads, and I'll even click on them if they are interesting, but it's going to be on my terms. Maybe I should open wired in a container or something.
(Support them with a magazine subscription though!)
Install an ad blocker.
Wow. Just use Firefox and a $5/month email service. Where did this myth that privacy protecting applications were difficult to use come from? Firefox is just as easy as chrome, and Signal's only difficulty is getting other people to use it, not the UI. I understand actually ensuring your data doesn't leak is difficult, but the apps to use are certainly not difficult.
For all of the supposed liberating power of their digital devices, they might as well be wearing ankle monitors.
Today’s students live their lives so publicly — through the technology we provide them without training — that much simpler errors than mine earn them the wrath of the entire internet.
A year ago I attempted this by seeing what exactly I would need to do just to simply build my own cell phone, just to call, which did not allow any kind of tracking. Every layer you step through, from components to software to the telecom infrastructure itself has some finger in the pie. For the first time that stoner-ism "it's the SYSTEM, man" began to take a concrete form, like discovering some invisible forces just under the surface, governing our behavior. That's when I pulled the plug for my own sanity.
How it is we not only accepted this, but allow an entire market to exist buying and selling our personal lives (of which of course we ourselves do not profit directly from), still astounds me.
Keeping your life private is no longer the default mode. It's now more like going to the gym: it requires continuous drive and effort. Most don't have the time or the resources to even think about personal privacy, let alone take some kind of meaningful action.
Yes opening TOR to run a search query is just as easy as having Chrome open all the time too.
The non-google email that you also made over TOR should be set up already.
Regarding social networks, delete your account. Make a new one with no phone number or a different phone number. This breaks the social graph. Honestly, just don't add people back to it. Your immediate family knows how to contact you, and if you add them back the whole social graph relinks you with them. Download your data if you have attachment issues. You can avoid the awkward "I don't have that network" conversation by actually having one, for some people you meet. For others, use the other way to contact you.
If a Google Voice no longer works to signup to a social network, and you don't want to pay for an additional line, then head on over to dark net marketplaces because you can pay people to get the phone number confirmation codes for you there. But of course, you can probably also find someone on Fiverr if someone convinced you DNMs are "scary". DNM providers likely have better access to mass phone numbers.
The more we rely on technology the more powerless and less free we become.
Google's Eric Schmidt suggests that young people should change their name upon reaching adulthood
Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy Is Over
Then came the Internet. Comparing the before and after, the only strong benefit of the Internet is much better and cheaper access to information. Unfortunately, the "cheaper" part means you end up sacrificing something.
I too would like not to be tracked on the Internet. But I'm not going to forget that I did live a life before the Internet, and it was quite a reasonable life. Moreover, that life is by no means obsolete in today's age. You can get most of what you want in the article while still having the Internet. Just don't try to live your whole life (knowledge + purchases) online.
Think of the generation that doesn't have this firsthand knowledge and were born after the pre-internet era. They behaviors are shaped in completely different ways and they have no pre-internet benchmark to compare it to.
The article not only touches on purchases, but also facial recognition and the trouble with keep your friends and family from revealing the child. Not as simple as "buy stuff offline with cash".
I'm aware of that. No rule that says you have to touch on the whole article when commenting on the Internet :-)
As for friends and family: To be honest, that's always been a problem, even before the Internet. My experience in both eras has been that people will leak information to people you don't, and the only solution I know of is to separate the world into people who can keep things to themselves, and those who cannot.
Granted, it's a bit more complicated now. Even a "trusted" person could message you, and the information leaks to the intermediaries.
If people didn't feel compelled to read/buy/communicate/watch everything and everyone everywhere right now, they'd find themselves significantly less tracked, and possibly a lot less stressed.
The problem is the web tracking. And spending even a tiny amount of energy reviewing and installing Ublock Origin improves one's mental health in a way that's obvious when observing the browsing patterns of somebody who doesn't block ads.
If one wants to extend that obsession down to the source of web tracking and attempt to hide one's behavior from the entire advertising industry, that may run the risk of having a detrimental effect on one's health. But a) there is potentially new information which can be gleaned from trying, and b) one can always scale back to and depend on an easy-to-install set of ad-blocking solutions to filter the worst of it.
The only thing you'd save from not worrying at all about web tracking is a small up-front cost of installing an ad-blocker. Those savings pales in comparison to the distractions of being a constant subject to ads.
The problem is not climate change, the problem is your obsession about it. Stop worrying about it
The problem is not the rampant corruption, the problem is your obsession about it. Stop worrying about it
The problem is not ___ ______, the problem is your obsession about it. Stop worrying about it
Just give up, right?
Whether the parameters of some neural net are trained on the Facebook pictures of your baby you uploaded is entirely insignificant.
On the other hand, the psychological harm this author will do to their baby if they raise them with an attitude of fear and anxiety is likely to cause them to suffer greatly.
I’m not sure what you mean by “pushed to the fringes” - it seems this author’s isolation is self-imposed. I’m familiar with the ways depression and anxiety can isolate a person, so I’m sympathetic. But it’s often not useful to express that fight-or-flight response by trying to spread your anxieties to others. Learning to distinguish which perceived problems actually matter is important. Most of them can be dealt with inside your head, or by talking them through with someone you trust. Learning to do this has greatly improved my quality of life and my personal relationships.
Arguing against privacy protection by claiming its for the benefit of our economy is just rehashing the "free market vs regulated market" argument. Sure, economic efficiency improves. Our wellbeing? Not always.
Is ad tracking pervasiveness the same as locking factory workers inside a burning building? Probably not. But we learned well from that mistake almost a century ago. We'll learn from this one too.
In general, we didn't foresee the consequences of derivative markets for mortgage backed securities until it was too late, even though some raised concerns. Now we're very well aware, enacting regulations to hopefully prevent it in the future, as well as provide clear channels for recovery and compensation for damages if it does.
In general, we didn't foresee the consequence of unregulated treatment for employees until it was too late, even though some raised concerns. Now we're very well aware, enacting regulations to hopefully prevent it in the future, as well as provide clear channels for recovery and compensation for damages if it does.
Comparing that to the tracking market today, we have effectively zero regulation and zero ability for recovery and compensation. We know the tracking market is so pervasive that meaningful living/working today requires submitting yourself to this. We also have articles like this one demonstrating clear concerns.
The only thing missing is an understanding of the consequences. We can't ever know the scope of the consequences until they've happened. We can however make predictions (both good and bad). It may be just fine, it may not.
Should we take steps now to mitigate the possible bad outcomes? Or should we gamble and let the consequences happen to us?
The same argument goes for most civic debate.
I don't know what a healthy social and regulatory relationship with the tech looks like. I don't believe anyone does yet. I do know that discussing it like we are now improves our understanding of its complexities, and that's always good.
Hope this makes sense.
Concerning the remark about congress--they're fully capable of addressing both. No reason for an either/or.
However, I’d also consider that there is an infite array of possible risks to address, and we are likely to be biased towards looking into the ones that are related to things we are paying the most attention to.
Due to the financial success of the tech giants, and specifically the shifting of ad spend from newspapers to tech companies, it seems to me we are likely thinking about the dangers of ad tracking too much, rather than too little. The media companies have unfortunately suffered from the success of tech, so it’s not surprising they would be on guard for problems the industry might cause. And Congress, of course, will use both the carrot and the stick to get their piece of the action in the form of campaign contributions.
We have a known-known slow-motion disaster happening right in front of us, that has already seriously damaged world we live on, and is projected to do much worse. That danger is coming from an industry that has had a lot more time to form stronger influence-trading bonds with the powers that be. I feel like we’re all being distracted with a dog-and-pony show when people are walking around scared about ad tracking when the Earth is burning. Maybe if the tech companies can stay at the top of the heap for a long time spending money buying Congress, loyalties will shift enough for the government to be willing to do what’s needed to put the reigns on extractive energy interests and solve humanity’s #1 problem (it pains me to suggest that buying Congress is ever a good thing, but I’m trying to be optimistic in the face of what seems like a huge disaster).