@rysiek Advertisers are only wrong about one thing there (that we are okay with tracking). Sure it's the only way they can generate the nice personalised ads, but don't let impossible get in the way of a good paradox.

@LovesTha they're not "wrong", they're lying through their teeth.

@LovesTha because logic. one cannot be simultaneously wrong about something and lying about the same thing.

lying implies the person who is making a statement knows the statement is false.

and advertisers know people don't want to be tracked.

@rysiek So they are lying about the tracking and can be wrong or right about people wanting personalised ads.

@strypey @rysiek I'm not defending the current implementations. But I'd rather see ads for products for hobbies I have than for llama farming products.

@rysiek Apple are doing what other networks are doing - moving from data being generally available to what's known as 'data clean rooms'.

Advertisers are allowed to understand information about their ad effectiveness, but it has to be within each network's platform and based on the ad network's info.

Facebook and Google have one too, and I'd be shocked if Bing doesn't.

So if your concern is data privacy in general, none of this really helps. If it's data privacy from brands, it does.

@rysiek The problem for brands is that the ad system then becomes focused more heavily on whether you can trust Google/FB/Apple that their methodology is fair.

You probably can't, tbh.

With Google, this doesn't mean your personal data isn't at stake. Google allows brands to upload personal data for customers, and Google promises they won't abuse that information.

FB's pretty similar in their clean rooms. Again, it doesn't protect data, it just keeps it wrapped into G/FB/A's ecosystem

@rysiek worked in digital advertising for 4 years now, especially with tracking and attribution. Happy to answer questions about this kind of stuff from anyone following the thread :)

@rysiek on the other hand, sending a poor person ads for 80k$+ cars or sending a weeb ads for golf clubs just pisses everyone off and wastes bandwidth.

@icedquinn sending me ads for stuff I *already bought*, for months, after a few searches while I was buying it, just pisses me off and wastes bandwidth.

but that's nothing compared to showing ads for baby articles to women who had a miscarriage:
bbc.com/news/technology-465433

so please, tell me more how we should let big tech track us everywhere and sell our data so that some bandwidth could be saved.

if you're serious about saving bandwidth, block the ads to oblivion.

@rysiek your appeal to emotion is noted and heartily ignored.

if you want to see abusive ads go away, pay for content. pretty much every creator would be happy to drop their advertising contract if they didn't need it.

(seems like @icedquinn blocked me for the above toot, so responding to their latest comment here)

how creators can make money online is a whole different discussion, and a way more valuable one, than "tracking lets advertisers save bandwidth on poor people".

and that's the discussion we should be having.

instead, big tech surveillance capitalists try to cram their one-sided view of how the internet should work. I refuse to feel bad for calling them out on their bullcrap.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!