TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

So what if Google sends me targeted ads?

46 点作者 theprivacydad超过 1 年前

20 条评论

Deukhoofd超过 1 年前
I think a great example of why data privacy matters was the recent concern many American women had about whether data collected by their period tracking app could be used to persecute them for abortions. While you might believe that the data being collected about you is harmless, a government hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect.
评论 #37324851 未加载
评论 #37325465 未加载
评论 #37325775 未加载
评论 #37325407 未加载
评论 #37325837 未加载
评论 #37325277 未加载
skybrian超过 1 年前
I like that they directly tried to answer this question, but I still think the &quot;so what&quot; case is stronger, for me anyway.<p>I don&#x27;t use an ad blocker and there are certain sites that are annoying, but I think the biggest influence on me is that I avoid those websites. I don&#x27;t notice the actual ads very often (other than as an annoyance) and I don&#x27;t buy very much. What I buy seems more influenced by other things like Wirecutter reviews. Should I stop reading Wirecutter because they influence what I buy?<p>We buy quite a bit through Amazon. Their problems with dodgy vendors and counterfeits are well known, but we&#x27;re skeptical. My wife returns things for minor flaws fairly often. It&#x27;s possible we&#x27;re subtly harmed by something we bought, but I see ads playing a very minor role in this, compared to product listings.<p>Another example of influence is restaurant reviews. My wife and I both look up nearby restaurants in Google Maps and this is nearly all the information we use to decide which restaurant to go to. (Sometimes she uses Yelp.) How are we harmed by this? Maybe there&#x27;s some restaurant we missed, but I think we eat pretty well anyway. I don&#x27;t think we are harmed by using Google for that.<p>Most privacy arguments seem to be theoretical and&#x2F;or ideological, not practical. I&#x27;m sure you can think of some, and I can easily anticipate them. It&#x27;s a common trope. But if it&#x27;s not a practical argument, it&#x27;s not going to be very convincing to me.
评论 #37325489 未加载
评论 #37325809 未加载
评论 #37325306 未加载
评论 #37325395 未加载
评论 #37325397 未加载
timmg超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ll probably get hate for this, but:<p>I&#x27;ve never used an ad blocker. I (generally) always &quot;accept all cookies&quot; from that European thing. I do use &quot;incognito mode&quot; sometimes -- but not often.<p>I&#x27;ve never gotten any malware or other things like that. I&#x27;ve never had someone show up at my door in a black coat. I <i>personally</i> think that most of the concerns people have about targeted ads is much ado about nothing.<p>I&#x27;ll also say: my phone company knows everyone I&#x27;ve called. My credit card company knows everywhere I&#x27;ve traveled or eaten. And I&#x27;m pretty sure <i>those</i> guys *sell* my info. But people generally don&#x27;t seem concerned about that(?)
评论 #37325512 未加载
评论 #37325409 未加载
评论 #37325389 未加载
评论 #37325519 未加载
评论 #37325643 未加载
评论 #37326472 未加载
评论 #37325327 未加载
jccalhoun超过 1 年前
If they are collecting so much data why do the ads still suck? I bought a pixel 7a and I still get ads for it all the time. You would think that google would know that I already bought a google phone from them.
评论 #37325619 未加载
评论 #37325419 未加载
alphabetting超过 1 年前
Obviously in a very small minority here but I decided almost 10 years ago to give them as much data as possible because they were leading in AI and I want AI to have access to as much data on me as possible to make life easier when it gets smart enough. Hasn&#x27;t panned out yet but I don&#x27;t really regret it.
评论 #37325448 未加载
评论 #37325297 未加载
akho超过 1 年前
To me, the issue is not data collection, but quality of ad-driven services. To be able to show ads, they make rhe product worse: ads in youtube are known to make videos longer, so the authors get a mid-video ad; search is mostly dead, because the incentive is shifted towards relevant ads, not relevant results; ...
acumenical超过 1 年前
I find it tiresome that blogposts about privacy always end up devolving into a discussion about how data can be used against individuals. There is a flip side to that coin, which is the individual&#x27;s free will. Every one of us here chooses our actions, every day. If we don&#x27;t like what Google knows about us, maybe it is time to ask ourselves hard questions, and to learn to truly accept ourselves as well as improving where we fall short.<p>This includes phenomena such as polarizing news causing social strife. If we simply took the time to understand how things are connected as well as how things are not, we would not so easily fall victim to propaganda. We can&#x27;t just use the excuse that since Google knows our search history that we have no control over whether we are polarized. We also can&#x27;t assume that once we de-Google our lives that we are any more properly prepared against polarizing propaganda. Lessons of mindfulness toward our neighbors&#x27; struggles don&#x27;t come for free.<p>On top of that, the author of the linked blogpost is fooling himself. Other than halfway proving a point, he hasn&#x27;t solved much. By continuing to use Google Maps he essentially makes a great deal of his online activity discoverable, undoing much of his work to &quot;de-Google&quot; his life.<p>Furthermore, Google has settings to blunt ad targeting, which seem quite effective, and you&#x27;ll end up learning about CNC machines and dental drills in between your YouTube binges. If there was someone I&#x27;d accuse of dark patterns with ad targeting, that someone would be Meta.
评论 #37329918 未加载
RajT88超过 1 年前
&gt; My supermarket has a savings scheme, in exchange for my personal information. The way it works is that the cashier asks: do you want to join this savings scheme?<p>They know all your personal info from the credit card you&#x27;re using anyways. The phone number you provide at the supermarket is a formality.<p>The proof is in the pudding: When I buy stuff at home depot, there was one time I provided my email address for a receipt. Now every time it asks if I want my receipt emailed.<p>&quot;Aha!&quot; you say &quot;You provided them your email address&quot;. They already would know, because they track you through the store with cameras.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.adobe.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;news-details&#x2F;2022&#x2F;Adobe-Drives-Personalization-and-Omnichannel-Services-for-The-Home-Depot-with-Real-Time-Customer-Data&#x2F;default.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.adobe.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;news-details&#x2F;2022&#x2F;Adobe-Drives-P...</a><p>(As an aside, that quote in the article about &quot;72% of consumers say that poor personalization decreases their trust in brands. &quot; is 100% made up bullshit, lol)
评论 #37326510 未加载
vcg3rd超过 1 年前
I still use plaintext email without images so every so often I get one of those emails (required by regulation, I think) telling me they are going to stop unless I click a link.<p>If I want to keep getting it, I reply and tell them if my reply isn&#x27;t enough to drop me because I don&#x27;t click links (if something interests me more than what is in the email I go to the site and find it) or load their tracking pixels.<p>This is how it relates: I tell them no one knows if I receive [1], open, or read postal mail so why should they know I receive, open, or read email unless I want them to? They can&#x27;t target ads to you without reading content you consume and tracking you.<p>So, let&#x27;s rephrase: So what if the FBI reads my mail? So what if the IRS bugs my house? So what if Costco follows my car around to see where I shop? So what if Home Depot flys a drone over my house to see if I use a rusty hammer so they can sell me a new one?<p>In what sense should my digital life be any different because it&#x27;s possible and easy? Fork them is reason enough for me.<p>[1] certified etc excepted.
tracker1超过 1 年前
For me, the single most disturbing is when I see ads based on casual conversations my phone happened to pick up. Such as mentioning a piece of software I used to use a decade ago, and seeing ads for that software daily for a week after. Another, is the first time I saw a calendar reminder to &quot;leave for the airport&quot; not that I set such a reminder, but gmail had received the receipt for my airline tickets. The most disturbing is seeing a product on Amazon, where &quot;your friend purchased this&quot;, fortunately it was a switch, but can only imagine something more personal being the case.<p>At this point, I have ublock origin, privacy guard and run a pi-hole at home. I use wireguard through home on my phone so that it forces the vpn&#x27;s dns through pi-hole. On top of using Brave on my mobile device. I&#x27;m tired of it. More tiresome is the number of sites that are actually broken, especially purchases without the tracking events. More companies should ensure that their payment flows work without the tracking in place. When I have worked on consumer facing applications, I always tried to make sure the fallback display without ads and the workflows were friendly. No gaping holes where an ad would be and no waiting on tracking events for checkout flows.
评论 #37326225 未加载
bad_alloc超过 1 年前
Privacy at its core is a preventative measure against being controlled. The state, a corporation or other individuals have an easier time exerting influence over you if they know more about you. Obtaining information is a largely automated task today.<p>And sure, your country might be fine now, but over the course of history a lot of people suddenly woke up to their government turning totalitarian. Same goes for your insurance, your school, your workplace: All can suddenly work against you and it is preferable to avoid giving them too much information to use against you.
评论 #37326535 未加载
jasonlotito超过 1 年前
&gt; I strongly believe the default should be opting out of data collection, and that users can then opt in by choice, perhaps in exchange for more storage, or for a faster help desk service.<p>Or using the service in the first place?<p>The big promise of answering &quot;So what?&quot; and it amounts to: it&#x27;s fine if you are fine with it.<p>&gt; As you can see, I&#x27;m not averse to using Google or other Big Tech companies&#x27; products, but I try to avoid putting my entire data life in just a handful of baskets.<p>So, it&#x27;s not about using Google. It&#x27;s about <i>just</i> using Google.
评论 #37326570 未加载
giantrobot超过 1 年前
The data needed to target ads to you can be used for a variety of purposes besides just advertisement. You have no control over what third party &quot;partners&quot; do with that data and no control over its dissemination. You have no control over how those third parties can combine data from multiple brokers and de-anonymize the data [0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;kieranhealy.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;09&#x2F;using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;kieranhealy.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;09&#x2F;using-metad...</a>
FreshStart超过 1 年前
The ads are irrelevant. A distraction. The problem is the collected data is sold on and correlated and becomes a interface+sensors to &quot;hack&quot; people, simulate and manage political measures and stabilize for the individual bad situations. As long as there are two people left on the planet with phones, social engineering can get them to fight and distrust one another. And you can see the effects. In the approaches to you with emotional content instead of information. They got us good..
评论 #37325366 未加载
tra3超过 1 年前
&gt; So what if Google sends me targetted ads?<p>This is just the tip of the iceberg. What you don&#x27;t see is what is going to get ya. It&#x27;s not about nefarious actors lurking in the shadows, it&#x27;s someone like you and me that is incentivized to make more money by taking the advantage of the data they have on you.<p>What if you have nothing to hide? Then you should read this [0] paper that has a more rigorous treatment of privacy:<p>&gt; privacy is not reducible to a singular essence; it is a plurality of different things that do not share one element in common but that nevertheless bear a resemblance to each other<p>&gt; The taxonomy has four general categories of privacy problems with sixteen different subcategories. The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power).<p>Solove primary focuses on US gov&#x27;t privacy invasion but this applies just as well to Google et al.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.ssrn.com&#x2F;sol3&#x2F;papers.cfm?abstract_id=3976770" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.ssrn.com&#x2F;sol3&#x2F;papers.cfm?abstract_id=3976770</a>
评论 #37325091 未加载
imiric超过 1 年前
Something the article doesn&#x27;t mention is that your data is not only used to target you with ads. It&#x27;s also used to target you with propaganda or any political or social agenda a person, organization or state is willing to pay for. Adtech is the perfect weapon of information warfare, and it&#x27;s been successfuly used to influence public opinion, and corrupt democratic processes (e.g. Cambridge Analytica).<p>Both ads and propaganda have the same objective, psychological manipulation, and the difference is that one wants to manipulate you into buying a product, and the other wants to manipulate you into buying into an idea. These are insidious objectives on both a personal, and societal level.<p>One more thing: once adtech has your personal data, it is sold in perpetuity on shady data broker markets, and any company with access to it can exploit it and get rich from it. As with anything on the internet, once it&#x27;s out there, it exists forever, except you&#x27;ll have no control over who it&#x27;s sold to, under what terms, and, of course, you&#x27;ll never see a cent of profit.<p>All adtech companies should be paying users to use their services. &quot;Free&quot; is not only not free, but it&#x27;s extremely profitable for the company you give your data to.<p>The fact that most people either don&#x27;t understand any of this, or don&#x27;t care, is deeply troubling for the future of our civilization.
评论 #37324868 未加载
评论 #37325139 未加载
评论 #37324852 未加载
评论 #37325087 未加载
评论 #37325034 未加载
SenAnder超过 1 年前
While the post doesn&#x27;t address it, ask yourself: What if you <i>do</i> have something to hide? What if your government was like China&#x27;s or Russia&#x27;s? If you let privacy vanish now, you&#x27;ll be helpless when you need it. Data is power:<p><i>How pre-teens using metadata found a whistleblower in two hours</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abc.net.au&#x2F;triplej&#x2F;programs&#x2F;hack&#x2F;how-team-of-pre-teens-found-whisteblower-using-metadata&#x2F;8113668" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abc.net.au&#x2F;triplej&#x2F;programs&#x2F;hack&#x2F;how-team-of-pre...</a><p>Trust your instincts, you have them for a reason. If it was private investigators and spies following you around to gather what Google&#x2F;credit cards&#x2F;mobile networks know about you, you would immediately recognize it as malicious and dangerous. That it has now been automated doesn&#x27;t change that.
评论 #37325075 未加载
JohnMakin超过 1 年前
The issue isn&#x27;t <i>just</i> targeted ads though. This data, once in the hands of google, is packaged and resold to whomever google pleases, for whatever purposes those parties see fit - not even to mention inevitable breaches. Not google, but see the whole healthcare data fiasco lately with apps using facebook&#x27;s analytics API&#x27;s as an example.
评论 #37325107 未加载
评论 #37324769 未加载
评论 #37325055 未加载
Sohcahtoa82超过 1 年前
Meh, I&#x27;m still not convinced.<p>I mean, I suppose I get possibly being creeped out that Google knows you prefer Pepsi over Coke and that you recently purchased an adult toy or whatever, but...meh? So they&#x27;ll use that data to sell me targeted ads that I&#x27;m just going to block anyways.<p>I just don&#x27;t see how it&#x27;s actually harmful beyond the government access issue that&#x27;s just dropped in as a single sentence at the end of one paragraph.<p>&gt; A relatively recent example is PayPal blocking individuals from transacting or fining them for having the wrong politics.<p>Any time someone cries about being cancelled for having the wrong politics, I always think of this famous tweet:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ndrew_lawrence&#x2F;status&#x2F;1050391663552671744?lang=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ndrew_lawrence&#x2F;status&#x2F;105039166355267174...</a><p>Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views<p>Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?<p>Con: LOL no...no not those views<p>Me: So....deregulation?<p>Con: Haha no not those views either<p>Me: Which views, exactly?<p>Con: Oh, you know the ones
评论 #37324814 未加载
评论 #37325123 未加载
评论 #37324800 未加载
评论 #37327793 未加载
评论 #37325793 未加载
评论 #37325014 未加载
评论 #37325188 未加载
评论 #37325204 未加载
russdill超过 1 年前
&quot;My supermarket has a savings scheme, in exchange for my personal information. The way it works is that the cashier asks: do you want to join this savings scheme? If the customer says yes, they give you a form to fill in your details. If you say no, they leave you alone, and you miss out on the discount or gifts.&quot;<p>Hahahaha, yes, if you don&#x27;t join their club, they don&#x27;t collect personal information.
评论 #37324542 未加载
评论 #37324472 未加载
评论 #37325022 未加载