I worked for a tech company popular with enthusiasts when GDPR was first rolled out. We had a lot of requests from users who wanted us to provide their data per the GDPR allowance. We also had an influx of tech journalists filing GDPR requests in hopes of catching us doing something wrong or tracking too much personal data.
When we sent users their "data", many of them were in disbelief at how little data they received. Many had come to believe that all tech companies are secretly building inventories of user data to sell to 3rd parties, when really most of us just want to know if our heavy users of Feature A are also heavy users of Feature B, or if Feature C is more popular with new users but not old users.
The strange part is that tech companies are taking the brunt of the bad PR for things like gathering customer feedback and serving relevant ads, while traditional companies like cell phone providers and credit card companies are actually selling customer data. The latter doesn't get enough attention despite being a much more widespread issue.
Facebook doesn't sell your data, but your phone provider and credit card company probably do. But ask the average person who's selling their data, and Facebook will get all the blame.
I think Facebook gets the blame because they are at the end of the chain. They don't sell your data but they do sell the access to your data (from themselves through the website or tracking and what they bought from said other companies). Being that major player in the service it makes sense that they get the heat, but at the same time most people are still tech illiterate. I mean look at how people think Amazon is only a retail company.
I have never been inside a newsroom, so I can't know for sure, but I suspect facebook also gets a fair amount of the blame from news media because of their fraught relationship as pseudo-competitors.
Huh, thank you. Obviously the people on the ground don't, but there's no truth to the idea of what stories are greenlit by editors?
Could be as simple as occasionally removing mentions of companies that advertise with the paper in peices about customer data creating the effect, not J. J. Jamison telling people to get him pictures of zuckerberg :D
Relevant ads are the kind you get on DuckDuckGo: relevant to the content you're looking at. E.g. if you look at a site about origami, you get ads from arts&crafts supply stores.
What you've probably meant are called predatory ads: they chase you around the Web wherever you go, like a predator chases its prey.
Statistically speaking, you're more likely to buy a second object right after you bought one than someone who has not shown interest in the product. Things break, you might want to return it for a slightly different version, you might buy one for a friend.
For you, it might be wrong, but when the advertiser is buying millions of ad impressions and is looking for a 0.01% hit rate, the math shows that you're one of the more likely future customers.
Which makes at least a little sense when I'm on another site. But just this morning, Amazon started "recommending" a product to me that I'd actually bought from Amazon two months ago. How many printers does Amazon think I need?
Of course, as you note, printer companies realized people were actually doing this (due to the perverse incentives created by their ridiculous razors/blades business model) so now most printers come with pathetic "starter" ink cartridges that run out after about 10 pages.
The irritating bit though is that many cartridges don't last long (intentionally and unintentionally) once you open/install them, regardless of whether you actually print anything. So, if you don't print a lot, it might still make (financial) sense to buy a new printer... ;-[
I am tempted though to get a model with refillable ink tanks, but most of what little printing I do is on an old b/w laser printer which I've had forever. Still looking for the holy grail color laser printer that is cheap, networked, duplexing, compact, and can print photos.
If "the externalities are not fully priced in", isn't that just good for me? I hate to say it, but my financial situation hasn't been great recently; I might just go for it.
When we sent users their "data", many of them were in disbelief at how little data they received. Many had come to believe that all tech companies are secretly building inventories of user data to sell to 3rd parties, when really most of us just want to know if our heavy users of Feature A are also heavy users of Feature B, or if Feature C is more popular with new users but not old users.
The strange part is that tech companies are taking the brunt of the bad PR for things like gathering customer feedback and serving relevant ads, while traditional companies like cell phone providers and credit card companies are actually selling customer data. The latter doesn't get enough attention despite being a much more widespread issue.
Facebook doesn't sell your data, but your phone provider and credit card company probably do. But ask the average person who's selling their data, and Facebook will get all the blame.