zlacker

[return to "EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram"]
1. mjburg+kc[view] [source] 2023-11-02 11:58:07
>>pbrw+(OP)
Comments here so far focus on personalised ads as the issue -- but that's a symptom of what's being banned, which is the mass collection of personal data.

Personalised ads are beside the point. The issue is how they are personalised, namely by building a rich profile of user behaviour based on non-consensual tracking.

It isnt even clear that there's a meaningful sense of 'consent' to what modern ad companies (ie., google, facebook, amazon, increasingly microsoft, etc.) do. There is both an individual harm, but a massive collective arm, to the infrastructure of behavioural tracking that has been built by these companies.

This infrastructure should be, largely, illegal. The technology to end any form of privacy is presently deployed only for ads, but should not be deployed anywhere at all.

◧◩
2. lapphi+ZA[view] [source] 2023-11-02 14:12:17
>>mjburg+kc
Upon logging into okcupid today I received a pop up inviting me to join The League (another dating app), with my phone number already pre-propagated. After accepting, they sent me this email.

> We use the combination of your Facebook and LinkedIn data plus your About Me and Photos to ensure we are building a balanced, high-achieving and diverse community. Our screening algorithm looks at indicators like social influence, education, profession, industry, friends in The League, number of referrals you've made to your network, as well as supplemental data like what groups you belong to, events you've attended, interests you list, and preferences.

Absolutely terrifying.

◧◩◪
3. PaulHo+MZ[view] [source] 2023-11-02 15:53:55
>>lapphi+ZA
One of those things y'all never upvote is papers about psychodiagnostic software that uses your social media posts, cell phone location data, etc. to diagnose both chronic and acute psychiatric conditions.

I'm fairly certain that if a person is highly active on social media such a system could produce a better diagnosis than most people get when they see a professional, if only because the quality of psychodiagnosis is poor since it is often seen as a scam to satisfy insurance bureaucrats, common conditions are never diagnosed, there are fads for certain rare conditions, etc.

◧◩◪◨
4. phone8+Fc1[view] [source] 2023-11-02 16:34:36
>>PaulHo+MZ
> I'm fairly certain that if a person is highly active on social media such a system could produce a better diagnosis than most people get when they see a professional

What makes you so sure? (This is a serious question, not rhetorical.)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. PaulHo+vg1[view] [source] 2023-11-02 16:48:02
>>phone8+Fc1
Mostly because the quality of professional diagnosis is poor.

Myself I have a condition which 5-10% of people have. As a child, I had two very high quality psych evaluations for the time where people observed all the signs and symptoms (particularly the first one) but failed to draw a line between them.

Since then I saw therapists maybe 6 times in 30 years (sometimes the same one) and it was always “adjustment disorder with …” and there was some truth in that in that in each case I had some very ordinary kind of stress which was exacerbating my condition but in reality there was always a chronic aspect to that.

I’ve known numerous people who have severe mental illness (way worse than the quirk that got me kicked out of elementary school) and contact with the psychiatric system and never got a conclusive diagnosis. The first line for a lot of people is to see a primary care practitioner and get diagnosed with either “anxiety” or “depression” and prescribe the same medication in either case. A referral to an actual psychiatric nurse practitioner who is taking patients is almost impossible in 2023 in the US never mind an actual psychiatrist.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. diggin+pE1[view] [source] 2023-11-02 18:18:54
>>PaulHo+vg1
That's not exactly strong evidence that "quality of professional diagnosis is poor" though... it's just evidence that quality was poor in cases you're aware of. It's also not evidence at all that being tracked by facebook would have come up with better results sooner.
[go to top]