2365
The Zuck suck is in full swing.
(social.fossware.space)
In the few short hours since I started using #Threads, #DuckDuckGo has already blocked over 200 data tracking attempts. These include things like "headphone status" and "screen density."
Okay I'll bite. I work in product management for capitalist software companies. Every single software product you use has trackers built in unless if you're hardcore FOSS.
Even if the company has no interest in selling your data, it's still really hard to learn about user behaviours in the real world in order to figure out what to build next. Many of these trackers are UX tools, much more than selling your data tools. My previous employer fully anonymized and aggregated usage data, but we can't necessarily say the same for other companies.
These trackers are the industry default and honestly, I don't know where we'd be without them. We use them to measure the success of what we build and to look for surprises/opportunities.
On that note, for products and websites that I like, I sometimes intentionally turn off my ad and privacy blockers for them (as long as it's not intrusive). It's hard to do our work without that data.
Obviously there's a difference between UX analytics and data collection the data vacuuming Facebook does.
Say you can justify each piece of data collected via a UX element. Someone said in the comments: low battery, charger ad. Where do you draw the line between data for the product vs data for profit? You don't. It's all embedded in the idea of "the product".
This is a company that sells ads AND data. They collect everything. Consumers don't seem to care. Tiktok is still popular. People see this post and will still download Threads.
It's important for people to understand the industry justification behind data collection and why it's so widespread across the industry so we can have this conversation about what "too much data" actually means. Serving me relevant ads like places near me for food? I guess that's a feature. A face aging app that we train to feed a military database of faces to track down deserters? Not so much.
Companies like Google and Facebook don't sell data. That's a common misconception. Having data that other companies don't have is what makes the companies valuable, so it doesn't make business sense to sell it. What they do is allow advertisers to target people using that data. Advertisers never actually see the data, nor the exact users their ad reached, just aggregate metrics.
Don't they have partnership agreements and secondary products that repackages their data as insights? (I'm thinking Cambridge Analytica.) It's not a direct sale, per se.
Repackaged data in the form of other products is one way to do it.
No. Cambridge Analytica scraped data via the Graph API, which was open for apps to use.
The original idea with the API was that apps could become more social - for example, Spotify had a Facebook integration that'd show which of your friends use Spotify, and their favourite playlists (if they chose to share them). To handle this, the API granted access to not only your data, but some of your friends data. Keep in mind, this was all public profile data that people chose to make visible to public or at least to their friends.
That was fine when people were legitimately using it, but there were bad apps that didn't follow the rules. Cambridge Analytica scraped data via a quiz app. People would click a link and log in to a quiz app on Facebook. The log in page shows a list of the data types that'd be shared, but people still logged into it. They'd then scrape all accessible data for both the person that logged in, as well as the data their friends had shared.
The API is very locked down now. People that use the API have to have a privacy audit of some sort, and much less data is available. A lot of people don't like the API being so locked down (for example, it's impossible to make third-party Facebook apps), but there really wasn't any other choice.
Thanks for taking the time to educate me (and any passing readers.)