Meta | They Asked For It!

[Ayashe Ninetails]

21 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

 

From what I can figure.. The top one is what's trending for summer and the one you'd think was for summer is for Fall..

This winter, the  new Teen Shorts  and Flannel scarves are supposed to be really different.. I wonder what sneakers they'll set them up with.

It must be nice to be younger and able to wear anything you want any time of the year.. hehehe

The first one is just Kanye being Kanye. The less said about that (and his fashion sense) the better.

The second one looks like what happens when you let Denise design your outfit. 😂🤣

 

[Lindal Kidd]

4 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

A couple of years ago I bought a digital camera -- in person, at a physical store.

For the next 6 months my web pages were inundated with ads for the exact same camera I had already purchased.

Did you research the camera on line? The bot was designed to take note of what you looked at on the web, not your purchases.

Simple, but yeah, stupid.

If you did NOT do any online research, then it's not just stupid, it's moronic. Probably programmed by the CEO's teenage wannabe hacker.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Did you research the camera on line? The bot was designed to take note of what you looked at on the web, not your purchases.

Simple, but yeah, stupid.

If you did NOT do any online research, then it's not just stupid, it's moronic. Probably programmed by the CEO's teenage wannabe hacker.

I'm not sure I did. Certainly not that particular make and model. 

[Caroline Takeda]

12 hours ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Then .. they sell this data as very finely segmented audiences to companies that want you as a customer. So that, say, Nike knows you buy $200 runners, jog as a hobby, live in CA, are 45 year old male, and will target you with that advertising. Across every site Meta partners with.

That banner ad is nothing compared to the $ they make doing this.

You are their product.

No!

I tell you (and everybody else who is paranoid about data selling) why it is NOT in Meta's interest to sell data. The same applies to other tech companies such as Google.

I used to work for the later and I am still involved in the online media business. I know what I am talking about, I make a living with that stuff.

The business model is selling ads. They want companies to pay for ads to their users not for buying data. The data is what makes the ads valuable. The data is what allows to target very specific niches, very specific targeted groups and demographics.

To give that data away is killing the business model, because the person who possesses that data, doesn't need Facebook, Google and the likes any longer. He can now do it himself.

A user data base, is the new gold. It is what justifies a platform's existence. It is something you protect by all means and never let get anybody a hold of it (unless by accident or illoyal workers). 

In addition, it is not about individuals data, its about collective common pattern. Nobody will pay lots of money to advertise to YOU. YOU as an individual are not important to them at all. They don't care about YOU.

They advertise to thousand, if not millions who share common interests, common demographics or other common pattern, making a GROUP of people a target worth to advertise to. GROUPS matter not individuals

There is a name for that: Big Data.

They do not want to sell your data, because they want to keep selling ads.

I put it as simple as I can:

Data sold = no more ads = no more money

No, you are not the product. Ads are.

Stop being so paranoid about it.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Caroline Takeda

[Caroline Takeda]

7 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Did you research the camera on line? The bot was designed to take note of what you looked at on the web, not your purchases.

Simple, but yeah, stupid.

If you did NOT do any online research, then it's not just stupid, it's moronic. Probably programmed by the CEO's teenage wannabe hacker.

I can shad some light on that as well.

The system CAN track a lot more than just what you look at. It CAN track the conversions as well (purchases). It tracks what people look at (Impressions), it tracks what people click on (CTR), it CAN track which click resulted in a purchase (conversion). 

This is called Retargeting. 

If you are shown the same camera you already bought, that means the advertiser does retarget not very specific. He did set up a campaign using the wrong targeted GROUPS. In this case he probably did set it up as "target everybody who clicked on that product". 

What the advertiser should have done, is setting the campaign to "clicked but didn't finish purchase process". In order to do that he needs to setup conversion tracking first. Way more effective and less costs as well.

It is not the systems fault, or some stupid programmers fault. It is the advertisers fault.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Caroline Takeda

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Caroline Takeda said:

The system CAN track a lot more than just what you look at. It CAN track the conversions as well (purchases). It tracks what people look at (Impressions), it tracks what people click on (CTR), it CAN track which click resulted in a purchase (conversion). 

Didn't you just try to reassure us that we shouldn't be so paranoid?

It's not working.

[Love Zhaoying]

I have found some of the "cheap targeted ads" for smaller companies on some websites helpful, ironically. (Not sure if they are "AdSense" ads.)

They spam me for ads on companies I actually buy from. Since the ads change which products are shown, I never know when an ad will interest me!

 It's mostly annoying when there are multiple ads for the same company on a single page.

The best example is ads for Perfect Circuit for music electronics. I click on the ad when I'm curious about a new shiny, which just makes it more likely I see their ads even more often.

[Caroline Takeda]

11 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Didn't you just try to reassure us that we shouldn't be so paranoid?

It's not working.

Why?

Again, it's not about individuals personal data. It's about GROUPS. The advertiser has no access to individual or personal data, not even IP addressee. He has no way to identify YOU.

One group in retargeting could be, all clicks that did NOT result in a purchase : Show ads of same product
Another group could be: All clicks that resulted in a purchase: Show ads for complementary products

YOU are not a person to them, you are a cookie.
Don't want to see those ads anymore? Just delete the cookie. Done. 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Caroline Takeda

[Caroline Takeda]

18 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Not sure if they are "AdSense" ads.)

Adsense is not for advertisers, its a program for small publisher, not big enough (in traffic) to qualify for DoubleClick (The Google Display Network).

Nalates might be able to give some insights into how that one works ( I am not using it, I am a greedy *****).

Edited July 26, 2022 by Caroline Takeda

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Caroline Takeda said:

Why?

Again, it's not about individuals personal data. It's about GROUPS. The advertiser has no access to individual or personal data, not even IP addressee. He has no way to identify YOU.

One group in retargeting could be, all clicks that did NOT result in a purchase : Show ads of same product
Another group could be: All clicks that resulted in a purchase: Show ads for complementary products

YOU are not a person to them, you are a cookie.
Don't want to see those ads anymore? Just delete the cookie. Done. 

 

I could make a couple of points here -- about the dangers of entrusting opaque, private companies with that kind of granular information about individuals, about data leaks, access by law, surveillance, and security agencies to that sort of information, and so forth.

But what I want most to focus on are the larger social issues this raises. I'm actually not particularly concerned that Meta is going to do something nefarious to me, as an individual.

But the power of Big Data is precisely that it is "big." And as such, it is an enormously powerful tool for reshaping the social, cultural, and political landscape. It can be, has been, and will continue to be used to manipulate votes, attitudes, belief systems, and other things of that ilk. We know that this has happened. Is happening. On Facebook, most especially, but on other platforms such as Instagram and Twitter as well.

I'm not overly concerned about the advertisements that pop up on my screen: I'm mostly bright enough to ignore those. What concerns me, because it will impact me most, is how this data can be used to manipulate the culture in which I live. That's the scary, dystopian thing: not the possibility that my computerized clock radio is going to spill my personal secrets.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
Omitted word

[Theresa Tennyson]

3 hours ago, Caroline Takeda said:

A user data base, is the new gold. It is what justifies a platform's existence. It is something you protect by all means and never let get anybody a hold of it (unless by accident or illoyal workers).

Isn't that like saying, "You'll never die on an airplane unless it crashes"?

[Caroline Takeda]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

and will continue to be used to manipulate votes, attitudes, belief systems, and other things of that ilk.

For the good and for the bad, just like any other media.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

6 hours ago, Caroline Takeda said:

Adsense is not for advertisers, its a program for small publisher, not big enough (in traffic) to qualify for DoubleClick (The Google Display Network).

Nalates might be able to give some insights into how that one works ( I am not using it, I am a greedy *****).

My bad, I looked at one of the ads. It says "AdChoices".

[Nalates Urriah]

17 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Precisely what had me scratching my head.

I'd also like to know how they tracked me down. I'd assume through my credit card, but it would still involve, as Maddy notes, a lot of connecting-the-dots.

Most people have missed that now the major tracking tool is your phone.

6 hours ago, Caroline Takeda said:

Why?

Again, it's not about individuals personal data. It's about GROUPS. The advertiser has no access to individual or personal data, not even IP addressee. He has no way to identify YOU.

One group in retargeting could be, all clicks that did NOT result in a purchase : Show ads of same product
Another group could be: All clicks that resulted in a purchase: Show ads for complementary products

YOU are not a person to them, you are a cookie.
Don't want to see those ads anymore? Just delete the cookie. Done. 

 

I think some ideas are getting conflated with each other. Also some of the claims of "we never sell your personal data" are likely often miss understood.

The company collecting the data does know your name, address, and phone number as well as your computer and your phone's MAC address, which is built into the networking chip. If you have watched 2,000 Mules the question about how good 'is phone tracking data' is hot. The best US government data I could find says 8' radius for phones. It also appears to be 2016 vintage data. Dinesh in various interviews claims 24" but is never clear if that is radius or diameter. You can test your phone with the Home Depot app and a visit to one of their stores. It can show you where you are and where what your looking for is located. It is sort of a Google Maps Driving Directions but inside the store.

On the technical side, GPS can provide sub-centimeter accuracy when the receiver uses multiple channels. Phones use a single channel and are therefore less accurate. But for every minute they are receiving the accuracy improves.

Also, how could True the Vote know the same person visited multiple drop boxes? How do those people collecting the data make the claim their advertising is 100% targeted? Those claims are saying we, the marketing company, will put your add to that person on their phone or home computer based on where they stopped in store, supposedly looking at products in that isle related to your advertising goal. And some imply they know which side of the isle you were standing on.

Advertising is no longer solely based on what you look at with your computer/phone. How advertising reaches you and what ads you see depends on what you looked at online and where you have been. If you drive to work every day or use a transit system they know that and they know where you work. So, if the deli between your parking lot and office is using the right marketing company you will magically see the deli's ads. Visiting your Kaiser doctor every 3 days for dialysis? They know it is the dialysis center you visit. Try buying insurance. You'll find the insurance company has that information. How did they get it?

Now consider that companies like Google and banks collaborate and combine data. Read those EULAs and you'll see you agreed to that. Consider that much government information is publicly accessible. So Google or whoever can scan for information about you and add it to their data set.

Caroline may seem correct and mistaken on some of the points she makes. Once you understand there are multiple marketing channels to you her answers make more sense. If I smaller player is using you internet browsing to target your ads, deleting a cookie can work. But if you were looking at generators at Home Depot you'll see generator ads from Lowes and generator manufacturers. No cookie needed nor will deleting one stop that trend in what you see.

IF your personal information is NOT sold, how do these various companies know so much about you? Consider what THEY mean by personal versus what you are thinking. When they say 'information' what do they mean?

Caroline used to work in the field and I take it still dabbles. I used to do a lot of that type of consulting. Now just occasionally. Most of my current knowledge came from doubting 2,000 Mules' claims. What I learned is I am not keeping up with the tech. It is way out ahead of me.

I've always been curious about mind control, propaganda (a type of advertising), and psychological warfare. I am not the only one. We have numerous studies and reports of how government, companies, and groups are using large datasets and psychologists to manipulate the unsuspecting. There are ways to resist.

[Love Zhaoying]

Perhaps there's some hair-splitting involved. "We won't sell your personal information", but "we will sell ads based on your anonymized information which is linked to your browsing history, cookies on your PC, and/or your MAC address."

[Nalates Urriah]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Perhaps there's some hair-splitting involved. "We won't sell your personal information", but "we will sell ads based on your anonymized information which is linked to your browsing history, cookies on your PC, and/or your MAC address."

I would not call what they are doing as splitting hairs. I consider it legal but blatant misdirection.

Is it personal information if you like Italian or Mexican food? Is it personal information if you have high blood pressure? Is it personal information if you are over weight? Into supplements? Republican, Democrat, or Independent? All these factors and more contribute to what you see... and not just which ads. FB, Twitter, Google, and many online services boost or deboost information depending on the viewer.

Try the exact same search on different websites. On controversial subjects you can often see a shift in the theme of the results.

Often saying 'sell' hides the data sharing they do. For individuals it is usually a matter of who gets the information and whether it is used in ways detrimental to us.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I would not call what they are doing as splitting hairs. I consider it legal but blatant misdirection.

Is it personal information if you like Italian or Mexican food? Is it personal information if you have high blood pressure? Is it personal information if you are over weight? Into supplements? Republican, Democrat, or Independent? All these factors and more contribute to what you see... and not just which ads. FB, Twitter, Google, and many online services boost or deboost information depending on the viewer.

Try the exact same search on different websites. On controversial subjects you can often see a shift in the theme of the results.

Often saying 'sell' hides the data sharing they do. For individuals it is usually a matter of who gets the information and whether it is used in ways detrimental to us.

I meant the people - in this thread - who don't see see it as "selling information" - they are the one "splitting hairs"!

Edited July 26, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Katherine Heartsong]

24 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Perhaps there's some hair-splitting involved. "We won't sell your personal information", but "we will sell ads based on your anonymized information which is linked to your browsing history, cookies on your PC, and/or your MAC address."

There's a lot of semantics in this thread.

I'll add to this point. It's not just the things I've bolded ... it's everything you've bought online, every website you searched for a hotel or car rental on, every pharmacy website and search on those, your credit history,  where you live, what car you drive, how much you make, your sex , gender, and orientation, literally everywhere you go online or in an app you leave me a nice little usable footprint. Meta and Google know more about you as an individual than you could possibly imagine, hell Google knows the temperature inside your home and how often you use the air conditioning and when you set your away times if you have a Nest thermostat. Meta has more than 2,900 individualized data points on every single one of their users.

Can they sell *you* as an individual? No. Can they sell an anonymized you as a very focused micro-markerting segment with a few hundred others exactly like you to an advertiser? Yes, that's what they do. Your needs and wants are exactly what they sell.

Let's say I sell luxury do-dads. I know (generally) through third party market data (not very reliable btw) that my average customer is male, 45, makes $150K+ a year, is divorced, drives a luxury brand of car, and lives in LA. That's what I ask Meta and Google to deliver to me. Every single person who matches that set of parameters. And that's what they give me. So that my ads can now be seen by exactly those people. Even if you've never opted into my brand or advertising. And my reach to you is on every website or app that Google or Meta or Amazon have hooks into.

And my issue isn't this specifically, I think we all want tailored experiences, sure. What I have an issue with is the one-way stream of data going into Meta, that you did not explicitly understand (no one could) or ever agree to, because they make it too difficult for you to know what you're giving up, and what they know about you. I'd love a single button on their site that said "Me" that would dump every single data point they have on you and allow you to EASILY opt in or out of various things, but I want a pony too.

That's my concern when I ask, "Why is Meta trying to make a info partnership deal with VISA?" It's even more concerning when I ask, "Why would Meta need to know I've visited Planned Parenthood website?"

It's to sell that info onto their advertisers. Do you think Meta has your best interests in mind, or are they selling you for profit?

I've spent the better part of a 30 year career making sure you buy exactly what my clients want you to, whether you need it or not. I can influence your purchase decisions in hundreds of ways because I know the psychology and emotional needs of the client's audience. I've done work that will make you want this car over that car. I can make an ad that will draw you in. I can manipulate you very well through my work.

The best data is now zero party data. It's freely given by a user to a brand because they trust the brand to deliver something of value in exchange. It's accurate because the user themself gave it to me. I tell the user exactly how I will use it, and in turn that generates more brand loyalty and trust, as I can now deliver you precisely the interactions, offers, and experiences you've told me you want.

It's what I do, for 30 years. So I have some knowledge of what I'm speaking of.

After all the semantics are said and done it really is this ... if the service is free, and the service is making billions? You're the product being sold.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Katherine Heartsong

[Katherine Heartsong]

Now, can we get back to talking about wanting sexy times on their metaverse platform?

[Lindal Kidd]

Katherine, you've managed to be informative, reassuring, and frightening all in one post.

Congratulations, your Internet is in the mail.

[Love Zhaoying]

18 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

There's a lot of semantics in this thread.

I'll add to this point. It's not just the things I've bolded ... it's everything you've bought online, every website you searched for a hotel or car rental on, every pharmacy website and search on those, your credit history,  where you live, what car you drive, how much you make, your sex , gender, and orientation, literally everywhere you go online or in an app you leave me a nice little usable footprint. Meta and Google know more about you as an individual than you could possibly imagine, hell Google knows the temperature inside your home and how often you use the air conditioning and when you set your away times if you have a Nest thermostat. Meta has more than 2,900 individualized data points on every single one of their users.

Can they sell *you* as an individual? No. Can they sell an anonymized you as a very focused micro-markerting segment with a few hundred others exactly like you to an advertiser? Yes, that's what they do. Your needs and wants are exactly what they sell.

Let's say I sell luxury do-dads. I know (generally) through third party market data (not very reliable btw) that my average customer is male, 45, makes $150K+ a year, is divorced, drives a luxury brand of car, and lives in LA. That's what I ask Meta and Google to deliver to me. Every single person who matches that set of parameters. And that's what they give me. So that my ads can now be seen by exactly those people. Even if you've never opted into my brand or advertising. And my reach to you is on every website or app that Google or Meta or Amazon have hooks into.

And my issue isn't this specifically, I think we all want tailored experiences, sure. What I have an issue with is the one-way stream of data going into Meta, that you did not explicitly understand (no one could) or ever agree to, because they make it too difficult for you to know what you're giving up, and what they know about you. I'd love a single button on their site that said "Me" that would dump every single data point they have on you and allow you to EASILY opt in or out of various things, but I want a pony too.

That's my concern when I ask, "Why is Meta trying to make a info partnership deal with VISA?" It's even more concerning when I ask, "Why would Meta need to know I've visited Planned Parenthood website?"

It's to sell that info onto their advertisers. Do you think Meta has your best interests in mind, or are they selling you for profit?

I've spent the better part of a 30 year career making sure you buy exactly what my clients want you to, whether you need it or not. I can influence your purchase decisions in hundreds of ways because I know the psychology and emotional needs of the client's audience. I've done work that will make you want this car over that car. I can make an ad that will draw you in. I can manipulate you very well through my work.

The best data is now zero party data. It's freely given by a user to a brand because they trust the brand to deliver something of value in exchange. It's accurate because the user themself gave it to me. I tell the user exactly how I will use it, and in turn that generates more brand loyalty and trust, as I can now deliver you precisely the interactions, offers, and experiences you've told me you want.

It's what I do, for 30 years. So I have some knowledge of what I'm speaking of.

After all the semantics are said and done it really is this ... if the service is free, and the service is making billions? You're the product being sold.

Speaking as a US resident - do other countries, such as in the European Union, have the same issues?  I thought they had better data privacy laws there.

 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

27 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

And my issue isn't this specifically, I think we all want tailored experiences, sure.

No.

To expand on that a bit - there is one single market where I'm happy to have things tailored and served specifically to me - music. The reason for that, though, is because I listen to music from all over the world and in every language and a ton of genres and it would be impossible for me to seek out new artists all the time. There's just not enough time in a day.

I'm happy for Spotify to keep track of and analyze what I listen to and serve me a weekly playlist of similar artists. Then I go through the playlist, like/add/binge what I like, and they get more data to make next week's playlist even better. Their algorithms have been crazy spot-on and I've discovered hundreds and hundreds of large and small artists to support, so they're pretty damn good at what they do, too. Even when genre hopping over time, they keep up fairly well. I'm cool with this. As someone who used to spend whole days inside of music/record stores back in the day searching for NOT popular music, this is a pretty convenient system!

Everything else? No. Tailored suggestions have never been helpful to me and I always went through the trouble to opt out of those experiences (before I lost patience and blocked it all).

[Istelathis]

 

Well, unfortunately, this is our new reality and privacy is a thing of the past.  It feels we have become little more than a herd pushed to and fro by people trying to manipulate our emotions, apparently driven by political aspirations of the power hungry, consumerism, and greed.  

[Charolotte Caxton]

1 hour ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

No.

To expand on that a bit - there is one single market where I'm happy to have things tailored and served specifically to me - music. The reason for that, though, is because I listen to music from all over the world and in every language and a ton of genres and it would be impossible for me to seek out new artists all the time. There's just not enough time in a day.

I'm happy for Spotify to keep track of and analyze what I listen to and serve me a weekly playlist of similar artists. Then I go through the playlist, like/add/binge what I like, and they get more data to make next week's playlist even better. Their algorithms have been crazy spot-on and I've discovered hundreds and hundreds of large and small artists to support, so they're pretty damn good at what they do, too. Even when genre hopping over time, they keep up fairly well. I'm cool with this. As someone who used to spend whole days inside of music/record stores back in the day searching for NOT popular music, this is a pretty convenient system!

Everything else? No. Tailored suggestions have never been helpful to me and I always went through the trouble to opt out of those experiences (before I lost patience and blocked it all).

That’s why I like the algorithms. Saves me time. I don’t know what’s all out there and I do not want to look too much. Having a system that knows what I want and gives me suggestions seems like a real time saver to me.

To some it’s music. To me it’s everything else. Like on YouTube it will offer me suggestions based on what I like and usually I do! So it’s fun having a system that knows me. But I’m not hyper paranoid so what do I know.

[Charolotte Caxton]

1 hour ago, Istelathis said:

 

Well, unfortunately, this is our new reality and privacy is a thing of the past.  It feels we have become little more than a herd pushed to and fro by people trying to manipulate our emotions, apparently driven by political aspirations of the power hungry, consumerism, and greed.  

It wouldn’t be possible if the people didn’t accept it. Power, consumption and greed drives the world. We have to remember that ‘they’ are just people like us. Not some kind of huge omnipotent monster. When ‘we’ don’t  like something enough we revolt. I don’t see ‘us’ revolting against being able to buy anything we want from a computer screen anytime too soon.