Target lost - European Parliament approves initial proposal to ban some targeted ads

[Derangel]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

this sounds like one of the conspiracies you were talking about earlier.

 

Not really. Humans are not equipped to handle the sheer volume of information being fed to us by these platforms and repeated exposure to ideas is going to cause people to believe them, especially people that are already vulnerable. This has a direct effect on how they vote, causes they support, and so on. The insane political discourse that has torn friends and families apart has been pushed by social media. Social media has helped to spread misinformation. Flat Earth bullshit? Harmful anti-vax nonsense? COVID conspiracies? All that shit has been spread via social media and none of the platforms do more than the absolute bare minimum to prevent it from spreading out and influencing others. Social media companies could design their algorithms to filter out a lot of this stuff, but that would mean less engagement so they do just enough to look like they're doing something but not enough to actually deal with the problem.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

Humans are not equipped to handle the sheer volume of information being fed to us

This sounds identical to how conspiracies are messages. Vague claims with no scientific backing, and an unspecific group of people are causing this harm.

 

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

I'm actually of the opposite opinion - I want my ads to be irrelevant so that I have no incentive to buy more stuff I don't need. I don't want to be part of a hyper consumerist culture. I want to consume less and spend less and live my life more.

What about ads for products that incentives you to buy less? Example, a knife sharpener. Instead of buying new knives every year, you are shown a knife sharpener, so you buy it, and are now consuming less because of that ad. There are many products on the market whose purpose reduce waste and keep your current items lasting longer.

[Derangel]

18 minutes ago, poochyena said:

This sounds identical to how conspiracies are messages. Vague claims with no scientific backing, and an unspecific group of people are causing this harm.

Information overload has been known about for centuries. There’s a lot of stuff to it, but one of the results is that it effects a person’s ability to make decisions. It can lead to people making a lot more snap decisions or being unable to figure out what the best choice would be. The human brain can only hold so much information at one time, our memory is very finite. When the brain is feed too much information it gets jumbled and it’s hard to sort everything out.

 

As for the other part about repeating something repeatedly to make people believe it: That’s quite literally an aspect of brainwashing. You see it used all the time when dealing with religion or cults.

[Mark Kaine]

so more popups, and  nothing changes, got it…

 

 

*wait*… you can turn off "targeted ads" already…?

 

i guess lying isnt lillegal per say, but if they're lying about that shouldn't there at least be some consequences?

[Bombastinator]

14 hours ago, poochyena said:

why do you find that terrifying?

So the ads I see are more interested and not stuff I don't care about.

That sounds like a positive to me. Its a big reason I like google news, I get news on topics I care about like local news, gaming, tech, etc.

 

Only to people who are already viewing that content. If they wanted to spread conspiracy theories to everyone, then they don't need targeted advertising for that.

Because it makes me predictable and therefoe manipulatable.  I don’t like being owned just because some person or group has the money to buy me against my will.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Bombastinator

[poochyena]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Because it makes me predictable and therefoe manipulatable.  I don’t like being owned just because some person or group has the money to buy me against my will.

oh look, more conspiracy theories. Did you know humans weren't evolved to handle 5G? Think about it.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

oh look, more conspiracy theories. Did you know humans weren't evolved to handle 5G? Think about it.

Ok.  You apparently feel that big data doesn’t collect the kind of information usable to identify positions and opinions and to serve targeted information designed to be manipulative.   This was doable in the past by direct mail campaigns and was done, but was very expensive and this of limited utility.  Why do you think so?

 

Also why on earth would you think I’m afraid of a radio?

[Mihle]

Ads targeted at children have been illegal in Norway bfir many many years already, I thought it were other places too, if it haven't, get your shit together.

[YoungBlade]

9 hours ago, poochyena said:

What about ads for products that incentives you to buy less? Example, a knife sharpener. Instead of buying new knives every year, you are shown a knife sharpener, so you buy it, and are now consuming less because of that ad. There are many products on the market whose purpose reduce waste and keep your current items lasting longer.

Sure? But those aren't the things that are advertised online. Businesses don't have a profit incentive to advertise things that make you buy less.

 

This is like asking if you want eggs and milk to be items sold in the check lanes at the store. Obviously customers would love that. It would be insanely convenient, but then you wouldn't walk through the whole store to get them, seeing all the sales and other things to buy on the endcaps.

[poochyena]

5 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

But those aren't the things that are advertised online.

yes they are

5 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

Businesses don't have a profit incentive to advertise things that make you buy less.

yes they do.

5 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

This is like asking if you want eggs and milk to be items sold in the check lanes at the store. Obviously customers would love that. It would be insanely convenient, but then you wouldn't walk through the whole store to get them, seeing all the sales and other things to buy on the endcaps.

would you be more likely to shop at a business that did do that though?

[YoungBlade]

15 minutes ago, poochyena said:

yes they are

yes they do.

would you be more likely to shop at a business that did do that though?

Take a look at your ads and count the number of ads for items or services that discourage consumption and spending vs the number that do. What do you find?

 

This is not up for debate. Business use ads to encourage you to buy their products and services. To believe otherwise is either being idealistic to a fault or completely naïve. Show me an ad that tells you not to buy something that isn't done by a charity or non-profit.

 

And of course I and many others would rather shop a a store that was convenient, all other things being equal. If a convenience store charged the same as a major grocery store, and had an equivalent selection, everyone would shop there.

[poochyena]

10 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Take a look at your ads and count the number of ads for items or services that discourage consumption and spending vs the number that do. What do you find?

moving the goal post now, from "none" to now "not many". anyways, how do you count that? Which side do cars or clothing that is promised to last for decades count as? What about streaming services? Or games, as games can be bought once and then played for decades.

19 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Show me an ad that tells you not to buy something that isn't done by a charity or non-profit.

well thats incredibly easy

"three products in one". This is an ad encouraging you to, instead of buying 3 products, just buy this one. This is how nearly all multi-cookers are advertised.

23 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

And of course I and many others would rather shop a a store that was convenient, all other things being equal.

sooooooo
you understand there IS an incentive for businesses to do that then

[Master Disaster]

42 minutes ago, poochyena said:

yes they are

yes they do.

would you be more likely to shop at a business that did do that though?

 

21 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Take a look at your ads and count the number of ads for items or services that discourage consumption and spending vs the number that do. What do you find?

 

This is not up for debate. Business use ads to encourage you to buy their products and services. To believe otherwise is either being idealistic to a fault or completely naïve. Show me an ad that tells you not to buy something that isn't done by a charity or non-profit.

 

And of course I and many others would rather shop a a store that was convenient, all other things being equal. If a convenience store charged the same as a major grocery store, and had an equivalent selection, everyone would shop there.

Hate to interject here but you guys are only debating half of the actual law.

 

Here's the cliff notes - http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/12/overview-of-digital-services-act.html?m=1

 

Pay special attention to the exact rules being applied to the final 2 categories, those being online platforms and large online platforms. Notice how the wording changes from being ad centric to anything classed as harassment.

 

Now before I get into it, I DON'T CONDONE ONLINE HARASSMENT, its bad and nobody should be subject to it.

 

That said, these types of sweeping and incredibly vague laws only ever result in one outcome, that being the misuse outside of the intended scope. In much the same way as terrorism laws are being applied to ordinary situations, these laws will be used by regulators to force online platforms to pull anything down on a no questions asked basis. A perfect comparison here in DMCA, since its a law if someone files a claim the site will pull the material immediately no questions asked. Only once the validity has been proven to be false will it go back up.

 

The difference here is this is the EU and like it or not, they are the gatekeepers of the internet due to the massive scope of the bloc. If they pass a law websites everywhere either A) comply fully or B) withdraw from Europe as a market. We can thank the EU for online refunds being a normal thing and the annoying AF "This site uses cookies" message every website now has.

 

This is being spun as a way to stop adverts, in reality it allows the EU to dictate what content websites can and cannot host. Its scope is huge.

 

Its a funny thing about politics, how they spin the optics for the public perception when the reality is very different and once its passed its too late.

[YoungBlade]

14 minutes ago, poochyena said:

moving the goal post now, from "none" to now "not many". anyways, how do you count that? Which side do cars or clothing that is promised to last for decades count as? What about streaming services? Or games, as games can be bought once and then played for decades.

well thats incredibly easy

"three products in one". This is an ad encouraging you to, instead of buying 3 products, just buy this one. This is how nearly all multi-cookers are advertised.

sooooooo
you understand there IS an incentive for businesses to do that then

I didn't say specifically that such things are never advertised. I said, generally, that they aren't what's advertised online. I meant "typically" and I find your pedantry there disingenuous. Also, none of those examples count, including your example. They are still ads that try to get me to part with my money and to consume more.

 

How is that ad discouraging me from buying something? It wants me to buy that product. I want to see an ad that tells me that what I own now is sufficient, that what I have can be enough, and that I should keep my money for things that are more important. I want ads that make me feel grateful, not inadequate.

 

The issue is not that there's no incentive, it's that the profit incentive of using the trip to the back of the store as effectively advertising is greater, and that's a brilliant example of how advertising works.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

How is that ad discouraging me from buying something?

"three products in one". This is an ad encouraging you to, instead of buying 3 products, just buy this one.

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

I want ads that make me feel grateful, not inadequate.

so you want to be lied to

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

The issue is not that there's no incentive

"I and many others would rather shop a a store that was convenient"

[YoungBlade]

Just now, poochyena said:

so you want to be lied to

You know nothing about me. What I have in life is far from inadequate, and I have much to be grateful for. 

 

I have a stable job, a home, a car for transportation, friends and family who care about me, dreams and aspirations that make me look forward to tomorrow, and a past of experiences and accomplishments worth remembering. I don't live paycheck to paycheck; I have savings, in no small part thanks to the fact that I don't buy any little thing that catches my attention. I'm not in crippling debt nor fighting with a terrible illness. I have much to be grateful for, and I certainly do not need a random "3 in 1" product to feel better about my life.

[poochyena]

38 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

You know nothing about me. What I have in life is far from inadequate, and I have much to be grateful for. 

I know you don't own everything in the world, and thus, there will be products you don't know about that could improve your life in some way.

[Supreme Calamitas]

Here's a much much much better policy:

Ban all Crpyo currency mining 

in a world where we're trying to be more sustainable with our electricity, its border-line insane for mining be kept legal. Just a bunch of dudes leeching off society to make money, in areas where its scarce.

[Bombastinator]

8 hours ago, poochyena said:

yes they are

yes they do.

would you be more likely to shop at a business that did do that though?

Have to say while the accusations made at me still haven’t been replied to 2 of these 3 seem to be pretty direct statements.  The third is one of those “what if I told you that..” statements of the sort often designed to mislead.  Sophistry has been known B.S since B.C.  There were debating sports that allowed straw man, but NONE of them allowed sophistry.  It was considered much worse.  The guy that invented it was eventually put to death.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Bombastinator

[suicidalfranco]

14 minutes ago, Marko1600 said:

in a world where we're trying to be more sustainable with our electricity, its border-line insane for video games to be kept legal

fify

[Supreme Calamitas]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

fify

Partly agree, but not for electricity of course. Video game addiction is a real problem you regret sooner or later in your life, but you also don't want a overly tight and controlling government like China where they control every aspect of your life because of their "collective vision" for the country, that would also be hell so I think it's a matter of education and proper parenting instead of getting the government involved.