▲ 1371 ▼ Google Chrome pushes ahead with targeted ads based on your browser history (www.theregister.com) submitted 3 years ago by wolf@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world 346 comments fedilink hide all child comments Google enables advertisers a look into your browsing history...
[+] InternetTubes@lemmy.world 32 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 3 points 3 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/wqn3gR1WTcA?si=GBKBNrQ-x0QKvwBh& Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent [+] SCB@lemmy.world -10 points 3 years ago* (7 children) If someone is swayed by a political advertisement, they are, by definition, consuming content they desire. Goal should be to change what those people desire rather than fight against them consuming ads/media. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 6 points 3 years ago (3 children) If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire. That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different. There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) If you can be manipulated by a targeted ad you were already into that. No normal person stumbles across Andrew Tate on YouTube due to an algorithm and thinks, "This man is my savior." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’. I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.” That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal" I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit permalink fedilink source parent [–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 3 years ago Perhaps to a perfectly rational being, but I don't happen to know any of those myself. permalink fedilink source parent [+] InternetTubes@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I mean that's specifically what this is about, yeah? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 3 points 3 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/wqn3gR1WTcA?si=GBKBNrQ-x0QKvwBh& Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -10 points 3 years ago* (7 children) If someone is swayed by a political advertisement, they are, by definition, consuming content they desire. Goal should be to change what those people desire rather than fight against them consuming ads/media. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 6 points 3 years ago (3 children) If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire. That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different. There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) If you can be manipulated by a targeted ad you were already into that. No normal person stumbles across Andrew Tate on YouTube due to an algorithm and thinks, "This man is my savior." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’. I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.” That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal" I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit permalink fedilink source parent [–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 3 years ago Perhaps to a perfectly rational being, but I don't happen to know any of those myself. permalink fedilink source parent [+] InternetTubes@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I mean that's specifically what this is about, yeah? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 6 points 3 years ago (3 children) If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire. That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different. There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) If you can be manipulated by a targeted ad you were already into that. No normal person stumbles across Andrew Tate on YouTube due to an algorithm and thinks, "This man is my savior." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’. I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.” That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal" I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -6 points 3 years ago (2 children) If you can be manipulated by a targeted ad you were already into that. No normal person stumbles across Andrew Tate on YouTube due to an algorithm and thinks, "This man is my savior." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’. I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.” That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal" I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jemorgan@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’. I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.” That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal" I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal" I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 3 years ago Perhaps to a perfectly rational being, but I don't happen to know any of those myself. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] InternetTubes@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I mean that's specifically what this is about, yeah? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I mean that's specifically what this is about, yeah? permalink fedilink source parent