zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
Ok, my contrarian hot take (for HN at least). The real entities we need to be afraid of in regards to privacy are governments & politicians, not companies & entrepreneurs.

The worst thing a company can do is try to sell you more soap. The government on the other hand can literally ruin your life (or even end it in some countries).

The EU is doing a fantastic job of keeping everyone distracted by pointing the finger at the "evil American tech companies" while simultaneously doing the opposite when it comes to privacy from government...which is the real threat.

I could point to many instances of this but the easiest one is the EU commission currently pushing a ban on encryption.

>>pembro+eb
Hum, if these behavioural profiles and assessments spill over to financial institutions, employment, housing, (private) education, etc., these harmless "companies & entrepreneurs" may have more impact on your personal life and your chances in life than government in a democratic country.

>>masswe+591
But they don't. These behavioral profiles are literally the core product of Facebook.

If you think that Facebook is willing to part with the sole thing that makes them competitive... is crazy.

>>JAlexo+xd1
On the other hand, the business of data brokers is effectively selling such profiles. It would be crazy, if the wouldn't…

(Mind that this isn't about Meta in particular, it's just that Meta has been found in violation of general regulations, which are now enforced.)

>>masswe+Gh1
If governments force Google and Facebook out of advertising, then they will start selling this information...

I would rather Google and Facebook have an financial interest in keeping that data to themselves, than having a financial incentive to sell it outright.

>>JAlexo+qq1
So, because they are likely to commit a much more severe crime, we must let them violating these regulations? Isn't this already a high-risk lock-in?

Also, behavioural tracking is by no means the only road to advertising. We have managed to do this for centuries with much less intrusion and risk.

>>masswe+Ir1
Why do you presume that these regulations are inherently good? I completely disagree on that premise and will not accept that statement as a forgone conclusion.

They used to not build profiles... and we had the most awful ads served... and performing search resulted in pages upon pages of results we're not interested in.

Why do we have to nuke everything and sow the ground with salt, just because some paranoid individuals want everyone to suffer their delusions? Especially, when the governments have more and more power to spy on us?

>>JAlexo+DU1
Well, it may be that I'm biased against that kind of advertising – and that this may be a mutual affair. At least, it doesn't work for me, like most recommendation algorithms. I do feel locked in, I haven't seen anything relevant for years, and businesses are missing out on me as a customer. It may be that this works for things like SaaS-business, but there are various studies suggesting that it does perform worse than traditional advertising in general and that the methodology of the related metrics is at least questionable. Moreover, we lose things like informed markets and shared cultural references as a society. Rather, it incentivises division and polarisation. So, if it introduces significant risks and hurts both customers (at least anecdotally) and businesses, what is strong argument for this, besides building monopolies (which may be arguably bad for the economy as a whole)?

But, I guess, we won't agree on this.