> The issue is not advertising, the issue is the construction, classification and use of human profiles through the collection of behavioral data, by-and-large without the subjects being aware or cognizant of the possible short and long-term implications.
I don't disagree that collection of data isn't bad, but two things:
1. The collection of data isn't the goal, the advertising is. The data is only practically valuable to do advertising better (and of course for surveillance, but I suspect the market for data for surveillance is orders of magnitude smaller). If you kill the advertising, you kill the need for data. If you kill the data, the advertisers will just find other ways to make their advertising convert better.
2. We should all be outraged at the idea of corporations using psychological tricks to influence our behavior. The human mind was not pentested before shipping to production. Some ads just remind you that a product exists, but many try to create positive associations to make the product more appealing or to make you think of it later.
We just let this happen and don't care. Mostly because we don't really notice it working. You don't think "oh yeah, I'll buy the name brand paper towels because I saw that commercial", you just buy them because they're the ones that your brain has an association with cleaning up the whole dribble of blue liquid. Of course you'll buy the one that works. Our brains are unpatched Linux kernels and advertisers are botnets.
Like, be outraged at the data mining and selling. But be more outraged at why it's happening.
I too see issues with advertising as such. It has created an unsatiable society that cannot find balance even though it churns through an ever growing slice of the planet. But I feel it is a longer term problem about how to organize markets and disseminate product availability in a less manipulative way. In a strange way the internet is actually a pull medium that should orient people more towards seeking information rather than being pushed stuff. In a sense the walled gardens and the timelines aim to replicate a push relationship (that was at its heyday during the TV era).
But I really think the risks from personal data based profiling are more serious and broad based. If these practises get normalized for adtech they are normalized, period. Every industry will want to get in the act. Car manufacturers will want to grab and sell behavior, supermarkets, banks, toothbrushes, fridges, thermostats and doorbells will want to do the same.
But ultimately I think we might be agreeing on the why things are happening as thus underlies everything: Unhinged pursuit of profit (= claims on society) without any care about the impact on that same society.
The various risks we are discussing will only keep multiplying and aggravating if we dont find more effective harnesses to channel these behaviors towards more positive goals.
> Car manufacturers will want to grab and sell behavior, supermarkets, banks, toothbrushes, fridges, thermostats and doorbells will want to do the same.
I'm curious why you think so if the goal isn't advertising. Behavior data is useful for business that deals with behavior. But I can't think of broad reasons for these companies to collect such data when you're already a customer, because they don't need to affect your behavior that that point, right? Unless they're advertising to you.
Exactly. I essentially think we need an amendment to the constitution that protects an individual’s right to not be solicited.
What law would stop Google and Facebook in their tracks is more the question we need to answer.
Data collection is a means to an end for advertisers and not in and of itself bad (nor are applications and/protocols that use PII or globally unique IDs, etc.), which is why GDPR hasn‘t really moved the needle much. It’s fighting the symptom not the cause. Invasion of privacy and “spooky” knowledge about individuals is all downstream.
And if I want to be solicited and psychologically manipulated into consume consume consume, then I really want it to be as relevant and effective as possible, don’t I? Yet another reason why attacking the data collection is ultimately barking up the wrong tree. But solicitation definitely shouldn’t be legal without my consent and probably broadly illegal to do to children.
I don't disagree that collection of data isn't bad, but two things:
1. The collection of data isn't the goal, the advertising is. The data is only practically valuable to do advertising better (and of course for surveillance, but I suspect the market for data for surveillance is orders of magnitude smaller). If you kill the advertising, you kill the need for data. If you kill the data, the advertisers will just find other ways to make their advertising convert better.
2. We should all be outraged at the idea of corporations using psychological tricks to influence our behavior. The human mind was not pentested before shipping to production. Some ads just remind you that a product exists, but many try to create positive associations to make the product more appealing or to make you think of it later.
We just let this happen and don't care. Mostly because we don't really notice it working. You don't think "oh yeah, I'll buy the name brand paper towels because I saw that commercial", you just buy them because they're the ones that your brain has an association with cleaning up the whole dribble of blue liquid. Of course you'll buy the one that works. Our brains are unpatched Linux kernels and advertisers are botnets.
Like, be outraged at the data mining and selling. But be more outraged at why it's happening.