Most people believe their devices spy on them to serve them contextual ads - despite no evidence showing that's the case. My latest for @newscientist.bsky.social www.newscientist.com/article/2457... - ThreadSky

stokel.bsky.social • 98 days ago

Most people believe their devices spy on them to serve them contextual ads - despite no evidence showing that's the case. My latest for @newscientist.bsky.social https://www.newscientist.com/article/2457333-majority-of-people-believe-their-devices-spy-on-them-to-serve-up-ads/

Comments

orinkerr.bsky.social•95 days ago

I have tried to persuade people in the U.S. that their devices are not spying on them, in part because, if it were happening, it would lead to an absolutely massive class action that would bring billions and billions in attorney's fees.

emmasculating.bsky.social•94 days ago

It’s funny; the widespread belief that our phones our listening to us has drawn attention away from a more troubling reality — private companies are collecting so much private data that they don’t *need* to spy on us.

vincentdb.bsky.social•98 days ago

so you say that creepy things like talking about a particular brand and then the very same brand 's' appearing in your screen are just ' mere coincidences'? Without me having to pay for the New Scientist subscription what's the counter-evidence?

averageatchris.bsky.social•97 days ago

Yeah it’s kinda like when you get a specific kind of car you start becoming aware of that car type on the road all over the place. But those cars were always there before.

vincentdb.bsky.social•97 days ago

you are referring to confirmation bias..yet I would like to see the evidence, because its different to see a car type all over the place than having an ad of the paticular car type popping up, an immediate second after you mentioned it for the first time in years..

averageatchris.bsky.social•97 days ago

How is it different? Also the argument is that there’s enough data to do creepy predictions like that _without_ spying. So examples like that wouldn’t be anecdotal evidence for spying.

vincentdb.bsky.social•97 days ago

It also says that there is no adequate research, so its left for us to argue without any properly gathered data, btw if you read this in combo with the new scientist article, its probable. Then we need a person from deep data analysis and marketing to tell us. Its not that they dont try to make more

bsky.heenan.net•97 days ago

You don't think third party cookies is spying?
It seems that many disagree with you.

stokel.bsky.social•97 days ago

You should read the story, and that will help

bsky.heenan.net•97 days ago

Paywalled.

stokel.bsky.social•97 days ago

Heaven forbid that journalism costs money

bsky.heenan.net•97 days ago

Welcome to the Internet.
If I subscribed to every journal and newspaper discussed here, I'd need to rob a bank on a weekly basis.
We dip into things. If your journal hasn't realised this, they won't survive.
Yes we hate advertising too, but accept it as a necessary evil.
Get with the 21st century.

stokel.bsky.social•97 days ago

The publication made £7m of profit on £20m of revenue when it was bought three years ago; the division to which it belongs now in its parent company booked £39m of operating profit last year. Forgive me for ignoring your prognostications

4quad.bsky.social•97 days ago

Don't ruin this for me, man

lmfao.wtf•97 days ago

What?

iainbking.bsky.social•97 days ago

Look for results not whether there’s an understood route for this to happen. (This is easy to test: Open lots of apps, then start talking about something very specific, eg a type of goldfish medicine when you don’t have pets).

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply