But, the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. You can't convince a profit motivated corporation to stop doing something evil as long as it's profitable, so it's the government's job to protect people from corporate governance.
I totally agree with this. But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?
And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Especially in a "democracy," when the people have implicitly given approval for this by voting in the people who are attempting to consolidate power?
Yes:
Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il)
Facebook collecting people's data even when accounts are deactivated (digiday.com)
Facebook test asks users if they're worried a friend is 'becoming an extremist' (cnn.com)
Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov)
Elections and courts. Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. When a company says, "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind. But you can sue the government for damages.
Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. They can’t go into my home without my permission and search my stuff. And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. If I don’t want to deal with a government, I have to emigrate and renounce my citizenship.
But they used to, once upon a time, until they were limited from doing so.
> And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them.
Except when you can't. There's no "stop interacting" for a bunch of things in today's society. Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products. If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance.
The government is no more or less restricted than a corporation.
> "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind
You can, you can sue for breach of contract. If the government tomorrow gets a law passed that they can share or institute a sharing system(like Five Eyes) - you literally can't even sue over anything.
> But you can sue the government for damages.
That's absolutely not true.
In government individuals carry more responsibility than "government". German government can fail to protect your tax data tomorrow and you'll have no way to sue them. You'll be pointed to the individual who'll be blamed and may even go to prison. But you'll get FA.
You have way more chances in winning a lawsuit against a corporation, than "a government".(barring some exceptions)
> If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance.
Use cash, homestead, etc. Yes - you can, in fact, stop any data going to credit rating agencies.
There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop being of interest to one or another level of government in US, while living in the US.
I know it's a radical example, but your statement is false.
And what's the definition of tracking? It's not clear to me if links 1,3,4 are related to personalized tracking. For example, is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking?
> is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking?
Yes, if I did not give consent to create a profile on me.
That's not how I interpreted the conversation. The article says:
>a ban imposed by non-EU member Norway on "behavioural advertising" on Facebook and Instagram
That seems to be banning tracking for ads, but tracking for timeline suggestions and friend suggestions would still be allowed.
And the comment I replied to seemed to be about ads:
>>But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?