this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
1429 points (99.7% liked)
196
5749 readers
1175 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To the previous poster's point, internet ads have evolved away from 'paying the bills' and more towards 'harvesting and selling your data'. It's made to be as invasive as possible now because they want your data, whereas before it was much easier to ignore or filter out. And it's everywhere, from websites to mobile apps.
To your example, the amount of money youtube(well, google) has spent on trying to beat adblockers could make the service free for everyone and keep the lights on...but it makes more money to sell your data instead, so they try to shove more ads in. That's also not counting the amount of paid research that goes into 'what advertising is effective', or 'how many ads is too many', stuff like that. Not nearly as much thought was put into them in the early days.
Is it, though? You don't remember the dozens of pop-up ads, or ads that would literally open new browser windows for you? All of that is gone, except on some shifty pirate/porn websites, isn't it?
Yeah, I'm gonna need a source on that one, chief.
They're not getting your data via ads. They're serving ads "tailored" for you after they've already harvested the data via cookies, browsing history in Chrome, your Gmail, your viewing habits on YT, your Google Search history, etc., etc.
Those ads are STILL there, especially on social media. The amount of times I've had a customer call into support for getting malicious advertisement off Facebook is goddamn staggering. They're made to purposely confuse and confound, especially the older, less savvy folks. Stop simping for data harvessting and invasive advertising by the way. It makes you look bad.
Again: displaying ads happens AFTER the data has been harvested. How is stating this simple fact "simping for data harvesting"? Buddy, are you OK?
Information is harvested from ads displayed as well, whether they're clicked or not, how long it takes for a person to skip them on a youtube video or how much of it is watched. All useful user data to try and personalize more ads for you. Are YOU okay? One shouldn't be trying to defend a horrible practice that tries to psychologically manipulate people.
The information harvested from ads is "did they have them displayed? For how long? Did they click", and that's it. It's benign. The malicious stuff that we don't want harvested is alllll the other shit that leads Google Ads to display ads for sneakers right after you looked at some sneakers on Amazon.
I still don't know where you're getting the notion that I'm defending anything here from. It's weird. Stop being weird.
Because you ARE defending by arguing against the points people make. Good lord... So you moved the goal post again because if I remember from what I read you were saying no data harvesting comes from the ads themselves. And that "benign" data harvesting is the same harvesting that goes into showing you ads about something you just talked about or looked at. It's all interconnected.
If they're shit points, yeah, I'm arguing against them. Doesn't mean I'm defending ads in their current form. And, if you read my original comment without getting angry at some tribalist bullshit, you'd see that I already mentioned what's wrong with ads there.
That's not user data. I thought we were concerned about user data, not telemetry in its entirety. If it's the former - my point stands. If it's the latter - please stop being silly and learn what telemetry is.
It's not.
It's not.
So that means there's no bearing on the advertising based on what you view because it's wholly independent of you. Despite it's been shown that they are collecting data of accounts you're signed into for the service, ISP information, and even down to individual computer information that's transmitted. Sure, uh huh, we're done here...
What...?
OK, one more time.
Ad telemetry (largely anonymous data related to what kind of ad is displayed, for how long, is it clicked, is it skipped, etc) gives them information about the ad's effectiveness. For example, if someone loads the website, a massive ad obscuring the entire content shows up, and they close the tab with the website without clicking the ad, they get information that such form of an ad is not only ineffective, it's actually harmful to the website.
User data (absolutely 100% not anonymous, although the "identity" is often your browser, not you yourself - until, that is - they get extra identifiable information, such as Facebook cookies) gives them information about what content should be shown in the ad. For example, if you viewed sneakers on Amazon, you get sneaker ads. If you talked to someone about tampons on Facebook Messenger, you'll get tampon ads.
Two completely different sets of information. If you're incapable of grasping this difference, then yeah, we're done here.