zlacker

Why does allowing them to store your watch history mean that they MUST also share it with 3rd parties?

Why isn't "I want _you_ to know but I don't want you to use it against me." an option?

>>kvmet+(OP)
Because dollars.

Being able to sell histories means being able to sell supposedly more effective ADS. Also shows ads were viewed and by whom.

Precision of any kind in demographics is worth a lot of money.

>>ddingu+11
As far as I can tell this is just the truth, so I'm curious who downvoted and why. Guilty consciences?

>>CatWCh+V31
It conflates data collection with selling data. Google, Meta, etc do not sell their users' data (for purely commercial reasons).

>>loeg+vc1
I always understood "selling data" to be shorthand for the whole metrics-for-ads transaction, seems obviously that "selling" the data itself would be a one-time sale but being able to offer "updated insights" every time someone runs a new ad campaign is repeat business.

>>loeg+vc1
the ol' "hashed minutae" and "in aggregate" chestnut. Meta at one point allowed you to target ads to a specific person (nevermind the cambridge analytica stuff.) Google is in the business of selling time, eyeballs, and mindshare to advertisers.

Google and meta (et al) receive money in exchange for the info of their user base. That they're playing 3 card monte (shell game?) with the data to "hide PII" - which has been mathematically proven to be impossible (currently, perhaps forever) seems a hair not worth splitting, considering their market caps.

Put simply, if there wasn't a financial reason to do the data collection google would simply not do it. You don't get rich shareholders by writing a lot of checks to seagate.

>>CatWCh+vf1
I think it's important to distinguish adtech companies from data brokers like LexisNexis who actually sell your data to 3rd parties. Lots of people read inaccurate statements like "Meta sells your data" and interpret that literally.

>>loeg+pl1
Suppose that's fair.

>>loeg+vc1
Others do, and for commercial reasons.

And how do we classify special government and law enforcement access projects, grants, and the like?

I won't say it is selling, but it is for economic gains.

And when they "anonymize" data, basically selling derivative data products of various kinds, what do we call it when that is enough for another entity to identify many, despite the stated intent being otherwise?

I did not intend to talk anyone down.

I did intend to just state the truth because sometimes we need someone to do that.

If said truths feel/smell/appear somehow bad, I am not sure what to say. Bet lots of us have that problem.

Got any tips?