Technology

37804 readers

225 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

106

[from 2020] Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising? (www.wired.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

archive.is link

It’s possible that consumers are happy to have the most minute details of their lives surveilled and monetized in return for seeing ads they might want to click on. This is a hard theory to test, because very few people even know they’re making the trade. However, one organization recently tried to find out. After the European Union’s landmark privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation, went into effect in 2018, a Dutch public broadcasting agency started prompting all visitors to its website to choose, in a clear and straightforward manner, whether they wanted their data shared with advertisers. The result? Ninety percent opted out, and the agency abandoned behavioral advertising altogether. (A Google spokesperson notes that all users can opt out of personalized ads, and that Google has long prohibited personalized advertising based on sensitive information.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Smartphones at present are small surveillance devices vaguely dressed up as a tool. That medicine is far worse then the disease. I'm going to say at least a very plain description and open/closed signs need to be up.

Las Vegas wouldn't be the same without all the lights. Where I live there's a limit to one moderately-sized sandwich board, and I quite like it. Somewhere else they might want totally bare streets. All could be accommodated.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Smartphones at present are small surveillance devices vaguely dressed up as a tool.

You know, surveillance of those devices is a choice, right? They're actually a tool with surveillance slapped on top, it's literally just a computer (and on an Android you can even install different operating systems with surveillance blocked). And what industry wants to surveil those devices the most? Oh yeah, fuck me, it's MARKETING!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I did say "at present".

You can install LineageOS (assuming you have a reflashable piece of hardware) and run it in airplane mode, it's true, although that itself is slowly getting more difficult as everything gets app-ified. Just doing stuff the boomer way is easier in practice, in my experience - which, again, is at present.

If we're allowed completely changing the way the telecom and tech sectors operate ahead of time, yeah, I guess we can get rid of physical signs and just look at the world through our phone screens. That's obviously a taller order than adding a single regulation, though.