• TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    even a scathing rant about surveillance capitalism becomes fodder for the machine, as you can clearly see with the ads on this page.

    Ads? I can see no ads…

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    can’t believe a social network started by incels in college to rate girls sexually would do something like this.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Goddam I had to read that headline 3 times before I understood the implication!
    That is outright disgusting, and such practices ought to be outlawed.
    Or as Trump would say, very cool and very legal way to make money.

  • Epzillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Happy I got AdNauseam after uBlock Origin. Deleted my facebook a year ago, shit is an AI slopfest built upon the greed and manipulation of every part of the chain. Defcon 31 has a good talk that brings this up. “Disenshittify or die” by Cory Doctrow, cann recommend to watch.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I support the use of AdNauseam. Not sure if there are any more extreme alternatives, I now choose to be actively hostile towards advertising/tracking rather than just passively blocking it.

      • Epzillon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        My dad has been talking about wanting something like AdNauseam for years, i was very happy when i found it. The extra mile would probably be to expand it with a VPN and constantly spam clicks, clear cache, switch IP and obfuscate data. Now we just wait for someone with enough time to build it…

  • hopesdead@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This type of advertising isn’t new. There is that famous (although the claims from the father have been questioned) New York Times article written by Charles Duhigg in 2012. A father of a teenage girl in Minnesota got upset for receiving coupons from Target for infant care related products. As the story goes, he later learned his daughter was in fact pregnant. It turns out Target was using some predictive algorithm to identify would-be mothers and straight up sending them coupons for infant care products. It seems ever since this article was published that they stopped doing this in such a direct manner. Again, there have people who questioned the validity of the claims for this specific story, but Target did confirm they were doing this.

    • El_Scapacabra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      My doctor’s office (allegedly) handed my info to a plastic surgery clinic so they could send me a “happy 40th birthday, now fix your sagging bullshit!”-email the literal day I turned 40.

      Needless to say that put a damper on things.

      People have been doing evil shit for money since the invention of money. These days it’s just automated.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I think I read somewhere that that was apocryphal, but it strikes me as 100% plausible. It doesn’t even have to be a matter of “write a system that detects pregnant women via their purchase history and send them coupons for maternity stuff” I think Amazon’s Frequently Bought Together feature could get it done. The same algorithm that suggests a tacklebox and some lures when you have a fishing pole in your shopping cart might recommend diapers and formula to those who buy maternity pants.

    • misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      They shouldn’t, but also PSA to any parents but modern parenting advice typically is to let your kids use social media if they choose, and guide them through the social and emotional difficulties with good communication. Don’t blanket ban it because they’ll just use it anyways without guidance, and be unprepared the moment they turn 18.

      It’s a case of: 99.9% of kids are smoking cigarettes so yours will too. Better to show them how to use a weekly cigar without inhaling, than just ban it which won’t work.

      • phar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        So teens should be allowed to go anywhere adults make it dangerous because it’s the adults’ faults? I hope you don’t have kids.

      • vegetvs@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        That’s a fallacy. Teenagers are the victims here. So I’m obviously blaming greedy corporations, lack of good parenting and proper regulation from authorities.

    • Someone8765210932@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Ok, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Arguing like this is kinda pointless.

      I don’t think it will be possible to get them off social media (or the internet in general), so you need to find ways to make it work.

      E.g. minors can not be advertised to, no algorithmic content, no doom-scrolling, and heightened data protection. I think teenager should get access to as much as possible to reduce the “risk” of them trying to go around it. “Their” version of social media might even be the superior one in the end.

      If the world wasn’t on fire at the moment, people could calmly discuss possible solutions and propose laws in every country to actually protect their children from e.g. the stuff mentioned in the linked article. Sadly, this isn’t going to happen …

      • theblips@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        How isn’t it possible? Just don’t give them phones, it’s not that complicated

        • cooperativesrock@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Ok, when was the last time you saw a working payphone? 2010? It isn’t safe for teens to not have a phone because payphones don’t exist any more.

        • brandon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 hours ago

          You can walk into any Walmart in America and buy a cheap smartphone for $30.

          This approach is even less effective than “just don’t give them drugs”.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you’re going to have a bad time.

            Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don’t need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you’ll have it with you everywhere.

            It’s possible, but it’s going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who’s paying even a little bit of attention.

            The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Source: am a parent.

            • thatonecoder@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.

              Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.

      • andallthat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        The thing is that social media have an oversized influence that makes a calm discussion of possible solutions very hard to have. When the US recognized the implications of letting a foreign power exert so much control over their people, they tried banning TikTok, or breaking it up so their US operation would be under US control.

        Facebook should also be split and its EU operation purchased by a European company, that could then spend more time implementing the other changes you mention (doom-scrolling, data protection) and less time lobbying to get all these pesky EU regulations removed.

        And yes, it does feel heartbreaking to count the US as a threat to national security, but China has never threatened to annex Greenland with military force, so what would have been paranoia and extreme anti-americanism last year is now the sensible, level-headed thing to do.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Not just teenagers. Facebook and quite a few others should outright be banned. Not only they are scientifically proven to be a mental health catastrophe and a political threat to democracy, it’s also pretty clear now that both these things are part of their design, not bugs or unintended emerging properties.

      • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Facebook actively contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, and did basically nothing about it because they didnt want to hire more moderators that spoke the language, so that they could adequately remove pro-genocidal content

  • Grimtuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Be aware that the companies would have paid Facebook handsomely to identify users in this way. The world we live in has a sickness with greed for money at its heart.

  • admin@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    How did they come up with this idea? Did the algorithm suggest this pattern, or did someone in marketing come up with it?