- Thread Starter
- #41
You really believe, they’re not able to tell the differences?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Big Tech. A serious issue that needs to be addressed.
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
Just adds to the ocean of info and dilutes what is actually me.
Right. It's about creating patterns of like groups of people and figuring out what their preferences are. So they can be advertised to. So no one actually cares about you the individual, only about how much you are alike with someone else who's kids surf on their computer all the time and pollute their account with the same stuff as yours. If you are enough alike and there are enough like the two of you, then someone might make an advertisement just for people who's kids use their computer and account to surf their own stuff.
No, it's the new milk, and we are all the new cows, and we all know how well they're compensated.
Vini darko
Major Contributor
Speaking of big tech intrusion. The latest starlink satellite string just went over dorset. I was out hoping (stupidly I know) to see the kinet x artificial aurora.
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,285
- Likes
- 2,938
I'm not sure exactly what to think about this. Sure, I don't like the Big Brother creepiness, and I vaguely resent feeling manipulated. But aren't the companies already giving us a fair price, in terms of the services they offer? I mean, Google searches are pretty useful. Should they be free? Sometimes this, and adblockers, etc, feels to me a bit like turnstile jumping on the subway.
This is the sort of thing that makes me quite glad to have an extremely generic name (amongst Americans and Irish, anyway). Running a google search of my name returns millions of results, almost exactly zero of them me. Not that that helps guard against the data collection aspect (or keep me out of TSA interrogation rooms from time to time when returning to the country...).
For that I rely on having cookies disabled on Firefox at all times, Proton Mail for email, Signal for text, adblockers on all my devices, etc. And, of course, no social media accounts. And ASR is the only web forum I've ever joined.
In the end that all probably accomplishes little but at least I'm putting up a small fight.
For that I rely on having cookies disabled on Firefox at all times, Proton Mail for email, Signal for text, adblockers on all my devices, etc. And, of course, no social media accounts. And ASR is the only web forum I've ever joined.
In the end that all probably accomplishes little but at least I'm putting up a small fight.
Right. That's the trade that should be happening. Meaning you get a clear benefit at the time you provide the data and the benefit is clearly connected to the data you provide. Like, I give Amazon my address to my house. In turn they use it to ship me stuff. And they share it with the post office so they can get it to the right door. It's not the same thing as a random forum site sharing my information with Facebook without my knowledge or consent so Facebook can in turn identify me and show me a super creepy surprising add on it's website about buying an NAD M33...
Looks a bit like a clean-ish cut Frank Zappa.
The problem is that social media is a "natural monopoly" just like stock exchanges. In the case of stock exchanges it has been going on for hundreds of years... what happens is that if multiple exchanges trade the same security eventually one exchange will start to trade more volume and once that happens all the volume will go to that exchange because that is where the volume and liquidity are. It is the same with social media... once one platform has more users than the others all users will go the that platform as that is where the people are. In the case of the stock exchanges society had dealt with this by heavily regulating the exchanges. With social media it might be too late as they now have so much power and the ability to influence billions of people... not sure there is the political will to pass any regulation that the social media giants don't like.... it is much easier to join them than fight them if you are a politician that want to keep their job.
And they didn't even have to plant transceivers in the base of everyones' brains.
Saidera
Senior Member
If a public-owned broadband network existed, if Internet infrastructure were public owned, if only there were social networking systems set up by the governments and linked together - is it still big brother watching? Or your neighbours keeping you in line?
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but the NSA is the biggest offender, so the state really isn't the solution. Especially when it's not that secret that they financed Google and probably Cloudflare.
Saidera
Senior Member
Let me just reword it - public owned social networking systems, though I don't know how this could be achieved. It seems somebody has to own everything and everybody else flocks to it, but if everybody owned it?
When comes to data privacy, I comfort myself with the realization that I'm too uninteresting for "Big Brother" (if there were such a thing, which there really isn't) to care to research as an individual.
Of course Big Tech knows a lot about us in aggregate, and the algorithms know about us individually. But few of us IMO need to worry about anyone scrutinizing us as persons, rather than as data points.
Of course Big Tech knows a lot about us in aggregate, and the algorithms know about us individually. But few of us IMO need to worry about anyone scrutinizing us as persons, rather than as data points.
Similar threads
- Poll
