strawberrypuree
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
From what I can tell, nothing in this statement actually precludes targeting ads based on spending. If it did, they would just say that. They only preclude selling the data or sharing it with the ads team. But that was never the model to start with! This is a sleight of hand by Google to cover up what they actually do: profile users and then offer that profiling to other companies in the form of a service.
To put it more explicitly, you can say “I’ll put your ad in front of 20 year olds with an interest in skateboarding” without selling user data or even sharing profile data with the ads team. You just simply get the ads and the target market and use the data to put the ad in front of them.
And doesn’t the fact that Google says they won’t do those things proof that they know their entire business model is super shady and wouldn’t be appreciated by users if they fully understood it?
In other words, what should Apple have done here? What is the right cut, and how did you come to that figure?
I’m also not interested in having my photos included in family histories, or indeed being remembered at all. Not in a bitter way, just in the same way that I’m not interested in which mushrooms grow in Botswana. It’s a thing that I think is perfectly reasonable to be interested in.
This is not hyperbole. Facebook already lays claim to the behavioral data of non users, creating shadow profiles ready to materialize should you become a user. This an extension of that.
We are sleepwalking into a dystopia.
And yet iTunes Match remains in service.
There are some things we don’t give the benefit of the doubt for. Murdering public officials is one of them.