380
submitted 10 months ago by vowseh@lemmy.eco.br to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dinckelman@lemmy.world 177 points 10 months ago

So they're not even arguing that they're selling children's data. They're arguing against the block on such sales. Rotten to the core

[-] Poggervania@kbin.social 65 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately, the United Corporations of America loves milking kids for money because they hope and bank on kids annoying the shit out of their parents to spend money on whatever is being marketed towards them

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 10 months ago

It’s why toys and sugary cereals run alongside cartoons. We should just ban advertising toward children.

[-] LWD@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Seriously, I'd rather just ban overt advertisement. Labels on buildings and stylings? Sure, what ever, peacock your actual location all you want. Have tons of info and material available for people? Definitely. Have catalogs for people to look through where you layout your stuff and make it look nice? Sure. Search engines? Duh. But straight up ads? Nah. Such a waste of time. Let peoples' interest drive the views again.

[-] LWD@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

The most basic argument for ads that I've heard is that they can inform consumers of options they would not otherwise be aware of. Not unreasonable, competition can only exist if people are aware that alternatives exist.

But that's not how ads are used or the psychology and research put behind them. And the modern incarnation of capitalism as infintiely growing profits above literally all else puts too much skin in the game for companies to make "purely informative" ads. Ugh. Fuck ads.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Not to defend Meta, but monetizing doesn't imply selling. Factories monetize their equipment, for example, but they don't sell it if they want to stay in business.

[-] dinckelman@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

My guy, what do you think an ad network uses people's data for? This is not even a hypothetical situation. They will absolutely sell anything they can to some dogshit corporation, for targeted adverts

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago

Targeting ads. Not selling the data you use to target ads, because that would be fucking stupid.

[-] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Sure but they are still maintaining data and selling access to it insights from it or ads targeted based on it to third parties.

It's being used to target content to minors for the purpose of selling directly to them, influencing their choices without any kind of real oversight.

Even if the data isn't sold directly it's still not okay.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Sure. I'm just taking issue with the ridiculously common claim that advertising companies sell your data. It's false and doesn't even make sense.

It also matters because I'd much rather a few big companies have my data than a bunch of Russian and Chinese data brokers. Even if you think they're no worse individually, there are a lot more of them.

this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
380 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58743 readers
4099 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS