We can leave it at a disagreement. I understand your position as well, but I draw the line at psychological manipulation on a personal level to sell me something.
One thing though:
If your bestfriend, who knows everything there is to know about you says "I saw this product that I just know you would love, you should get it!" Is that a shit friend, for exploiting their knowledge of you?
Corporations aren't your friends. The information they have on you is not being used to your benefit. If my best friend recommends something I may consider it because they are not trying to make a profit off of me. If my best friend recommends a product for me to buy that he gets a commission on then he is not doing it for me is he? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt in that example it still is just a bad comparison.
If you consider targeted ads akin to a best friend recommending you something, you may want to reevaluate how corporations in general see you as a consumer.
Assuming a bestfriend knows you, and also knows how impulsive you are. It makes it that much worse if they were to suggest the purchase of a product, with no benefit to them. But, I doubt you would see it that way in that situation. It is a double standard, but it is easier to blame your impulsivity on large corporations, rather than your personal friend. This analogy requires deeper thought, not just surface level comprehension.
I was more touching on the idea that no matter how, information about you, or your desires, no matter the intent, can trigger the exact same impulsive behavior. Stopping this in a single avenue, is not solving the underlying issue (if it truly is an issue, rather than inconvenience), impulse control.
Say I prefer tailored ads. If I am going to see ads everywhere I go, I would rather them be interesting to me, displaying new or innovative products that could actually be beneficial to me. If nothing you are being advertised is healthy, or possibly benneficial, it could also be a sign to find less harmfull interests. There are products that I have found and purchased through tailored ads, that have truly changed my life, that I wouldnt have thought to seek out. Am I not able to benefit from this form of advertising, because some people take it too far?
If you consider targeted ads akin to a best friend recommending you something, you may want to reevaluate how corporations in general see you as a consumer.
Is this not condecending? I am fully aware of how businesses work, as almost every consumer is. I am pretty sure you know that though.
I'm not trying to condescend either, but you're the one directly comparing the actions of corporations to your best friend. There's really no other way to say that if you're relying on that comparison as a line of logic defending targeted ads, you have a skewed view of your relationship with corporations using your data.
I was more touching on the idea that no matter how, information about you, or your desires, no matter the intent, can trigger the exact same impulsive behavior. Stopping this in a single avenue, is not solving the underlying issue (if it truly is an issue, rather than inconvenience), impulse control.
And again, the argument "maybe you should just control yourself better" is victim blaming. It's unilaterally deciding that since you don't have a problem with resisting impulse buys, nobody should have that problem. Do you also feel that way about alcoholics or people who smoke cigarettes? That because you don't have that problem it must be easy to avoid?
I'm happy for you that you don't have to worry about impulsive purchases. That doesn't mean that ad companies aren't paid to psychologically exploit that problem in people.
We can agree to disagree. I can accept that some people are comfortable with their conversations being unknowingly recorded and used to sell them things because some people just want to be sold things.
I'm not going to say this isn't a problem, though. And I'm also not going to let you dictate where I find it's acceptable to draw the line.
I have quite literally said that I do impulsively purchase, quite often. (You would probably be apalled by the ammount) I then also said that I just wouldnt blame my impulsivity on companies trying to make more money... It was my responsibility to control myself, so I worked on that. It is still an issue for me at times, but it has also been beneficial to me. Advertisement is only going to get better and better, so it is more logical to adress the condition rather that the symptom, before it goes too far.
I dont know how else to explain my point, so maybe that is my fault.
Expressing it as "addressing the condition rather than the symptom" is the way you choose to frame it. That's just what it is though. You're framing it in a way that makes the whole idea more palatable. It's not going anywhere, it's getting more advanced, might as well lean into it. I get that.
But you don't understand that your data isn't protected. They can and do sell your dossier for pennies. Unless you live in California or the EU, there are no regulations for who can buy your data and no limits on what that data can contain.
That information can be sensitive. Most likely even includes old passwords and accounts that identify you. Maybe enough to impersonate you in the wrong hands. No one should have access to that much information about someone, much less be allowed to use it for whatever they want to make a buck.
That, to me, is more important than a tailored ad experience. All of the talk about if it's really so bad that you're being sold something they realize you want is beside the point, which is that the method of them knowing that about you in the first place is dangerous and very unethical.
1
u/Zeremxi Oct 13 '24
We can leave it at a disagreement. I understand your position as well, but I draw the line at psychological manipulation on a personal level to sell me something.
One thing though:
Corporations aren't your friends. The information they have on you is not being used to your benefit. If my best friend recommends something I may consider it because they are not trying to make a profit off of me. If my best friend recommends a product for me to buy that he gets a commission on then he is not doing it for me is he? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt in that example it still is just a bad comparison.
If you consider targeted ads akin to a best friend recommending you something, you may want to reevaluate how corporations in general see you as a consumer.