So now, to justify removing someone from your pool of advertisees, they don't just need to pay what could be made by advertising to them; they need to pay for what could be made to advertise to them and (unwittingly) several poorer people.
“If you don’t pay for a product, you are the product”
It’s
“If you don’t pay for a product, you are a less valuable product than if you’d pay for the product”
So a fancy way to say that if you have 10 dollars?
Anyway, the devil is in the implementation details here, but this doesn't strike me as a common case.
I'm not paying crave anymore.
That technically is also competition. And if the market offers garbage for money, but the illegal market is free and better, go with the illegal choice.
You'll be treated like a criminal either way with DRM. So... Yeah.
It gets trotted on a lot here because the overarching narrative on HN is that regulation is an answer to everything when it's easier to just... not use the thing if you don't like it. Rather than creating a mountain of regulations that only big business can comply with, I think it's better to choose what you do with your money as a consumer.
For streaming, I'm not sure since I don't watch much, and YT+adblocker is sufficient for me. Again, not giving them money is enough of a signal if you don't find the product good.
What if I don't have enough money to buy something and I want it anyway!
And if you are paying… you’re still the product as well.
- Public websites are chock full of ads
- Downloading a file often means hopping through several redirects (each of which is an ad) and sometimes even having to "complete an offer" to get the final link
- Private websites have some affiliate deal with VPN providers. "We did the research, this one is the best, if you subscribe through this link you will get some perks on our website".
Of all the kinds of ads out there, that last one is the least objectionable to me. They don't force it on you, it doesn't clog up the important parts of the site, and they supposedly do some research to pick the best provider to affiliate with. I "never" click on ads but this one worked on me.
Although if they did somehow deploy their constellation as a legible ad, I wouldn't even complain. "Drink Coke" spelled out with a hundred satellites would be hilarious.
There just needs to be a blanket-law where your data is considered every-bit as intellectual property as a piece of copyrighted media and for there to be consent established to sell or give your data to a third-party there needs to be an active exchange of payment, credit or services that is opt-in only, not opt-out from an intentionally obfuscated EULA update email.
Require active opt-in and consent along with a clear set of goods/services/payment, and active simple on-demand revocation with strict timelines, and you could have companies actually properly incentivizing users to sell them their own personal data instead of it just being harvested.
Unfortunately too many libertarian nutjobs out here think that the market here will magically fix all issues.
People on this website are too small a fraction of society to ever move the needle. My point is that it doesn't matter what people on this website want with respect to privacy, in our capitalist democratic society it will never happen unless most people want it.
The reality right now is that most people don't want it.
If you frame it as a negative thing with no downsides for agreeing with you, of course people will agree. But that's not the reality.
What's the solution then?
"Would you pay extra for a guarantee your personal data is kept private?"
"Would you pay extra for a guarantee your data isn't sold for marketing purposes?"
One might argue "private" implies more than can truly be promised, for example no US company can promise to ignore subpoenas and actually follow through.
I'd say it mirrors for patriotism: "do you support $OUR_COUNTRY" will get more "yes" responses than almost any more specific question about support for anything tangible. Precisely because it's sort of meaningless and unobjectionable... (well except in the US, where I'm sure it's correlated with whether or not one's favored party is in power)
That's your quote as I read it in case some editing happens. There's no caveat in your original post that you are claiming now. You've moved the goal posts. As you originally stated, I agree with all of the follow up comments to it that you are now trying to expand on your original comment. Maybe that's what you always meant but just left out of the original. It happens. But now you're being obstinate about it in a way that doesn't look good.
This is how we have a free-market to begin with. You need enforcement and structures in place so people will actually trust any of this crap. Instead, we have the nutjob early 90's cyber libertarians thinking this will all be magically fixed with just magical freedom and the invisible hand fixing everything.
I'd wager that just by the virtue of being commenters on HN, we're already outliers.
This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited.
There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.
I don't disagree with you there.
> This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited.
The people get what they vote for, whether or not its what they deserve. The only way to move the needle on this is to educate people. Telling people they're "stupid sheep" for not wanting the thing you think they should want is not typically a winning strategy, in my experience.
> There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.
I'm simply saying I think most people care more about the first thing.
No, it was quality of reception, especially for people who were farther from (or had inconvenient terrain between them and) broadcast stations; literally the only thing on early capable was exactly the normal broadcast feed from the covered stations, which naturally included all the normal ads.
Premium add-on channels that charged on top of cable, of which I think HBO was the first, had being ad free among their selling points, but that was never part of the basic cable deal.
HBO was the first offering that didn't have ads during the show.
To give an industry that's a counterexample to the "they add ads and don't make things cheaper", look at groceries. It's a terrible, single-digit percentage margin business but they sell everything from placement in catalogue to whether the product is in a convenient spot on the shelf. That's a clear case where ads make it _cheaper_ for consumers.
I don't follow... it certainly improves the grocer's margins, but how does that do anything at all for the consumer?
They have also advertised for the Starbucks in thr Target stores long before when you go to pickup something.
Any company that has unique or rare data is compelled to do things with it. Those that don’t either can’t figure out how or explicitly reject the reward function of contemporary capitalism. We should really expect those deviations to be the exception.
They’re going to sell to marketers for ads I don’t watch?
In an ideal world, you'd instead have drivers assigned to either particular neighborhoods or particular restaurants, allowing for order-stacking and predictable routes. Bonus for set-time daily deliveries (get your order in before 6 or have to wait until 9). Bigger bonus for set neighborhood drop-off points (like those consolidated mailboxes, but warming compartments). Anything more bespoke would cost extra.
Unfortunately, the balance of inefficient operations, decreasing competition, and "line go up" is that prices have to increase.
At the same time you have processes like increasing suburbanization and development of even more car-centric infrastructure, which makes houses and restaurants even further from each other, and makes cheaper delivery vehicles like motorbikes infeasible.
> It uses LiveRamp's clean room technology, which lets companies aggregate their data in a privacy-safe environment, without sharing or seeing each other's raw or personally identifiable customer information.
> A hotel brand could use Uber Intelligence to help identify which restaurants or entertainment venues it might want to partner with for its loyalty program, for example.
Not much details on that "Clean room" but it sounds like the third parties get an environment where they can join their data to ubers and then run aggregate queries, but not actually see individual customer records. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I would be more surprised if they kept peoples privacy, as even your credit card company sells the purchase data. =3
- Ascension
- solve problem
- proof of concept / MVP
- investment
- roll-out in home market
- polished product
- more investment, global roll-out
- disruption of existing industry
- non-autonomous growth by acquisition of other players
- land-grab growth
- lots of hiring
- fancy offices, founders and stockholders make out like bandits
- market domination
- data hoarding as part of the 'moat'
- continued innovation: go to 'step 1', otherwise...
- Milk the cow
- eventual competition
- market share reduction
- eroding margins
- first reorganizations, lay-offs
- founders replaced with financial managers
- Data hoarding phase ends, data is sold *<- you are here*
- Decline
- reduced sales
- shrinking profits
- downsizing
- terminal phase
- lawsuits
- patent portfolio and other IP used as strategic weapon
- brand and IP acquisition by other players, not necessarily the same party
acquiring bothI can't imagine any depth they wouldn't dive to, in order to get a morsel to feed on.
1) Hook new drivers with better than average rates before tapering off 2) Take into account the age/model/value of the vehicle and what payments for it would look like in the market and dole out enough to cover costs but not "too much" that they're getting ahead of other drivers
Totally baseless and sourceless hearsay tho. Still, if true, really plays into the image of "there's no depth they won't go".
> Uber Intelligence will let advertisers securely combine their customer data with Uber's to help surface insights about their audiences, based on what they eat and where they travel.
So the companies have the identities. It sounds like they're going to be learning something about their customers, the question is just how much detail they'll get.
I’ve got it on less than 6 months.
Privacy is very important. That's why I think sharing of customer data - individual or aggregate - is bad.
Aggregating protects privacy when done properly.
It seems pretty obvious to me that sharing individual data is orders of magnitude worse than sharing aggregated data.
If you think they're the same, then you don't seem to value the privacy that aggregation provides.
So what am I misrepresenting about what you said?
I'm tired of false equivalences. One thing that's maybe slightly bad, and another thing that's super-super-bad, aren't equally bad.
When done properly is going a lot of heavy lifting there. Time and time again it's been found most aggregates are not filtered properly and be deanonymized with eaze.
It's not that one is big bad, and one is little bad, it's the little bad can become big bad with a small amount of work by an attacker/company. Then when you add in zero external third party verification of these company claims, you really don't have any reason to believe them.
Not really. There are common practices for it. Yes it hits HN when deanonymization can happen at a well-known company, just like it hits HN when there's a security vulnerability that gets patched at a well-known company.
But "it's the little bad can become big bad" is what's doing the heavy lifting in your argument. No, that's not how it works. There's no universe in which aggregate data can be deanonymized to anywhere close to what all of the individual profiles would be. It's a completely false equivalenace, period.
As a completely unrelated aside, I wonder how much social progress is hindered by people alienating people on their own side.
I just realized taxis still exist and most restaurants offer their own delivery service (or pick-up!)
It's been real Uber. GL HF
Uber support in India is the most robotic and useless I have ever seen with any vendor. I gave up after fighting for months, just to utilize my wallet amount in other country or get refund. Both were impossible.
> New York City has released data of 173m individual taxi trips – but inadvertently made it "trivial" to find the personally identifiable information of every driver in the dataset.
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/d...
If you're sharing data for a specific purpose, then it's much easier to limit the data sharing to suit that purpose: omit irrelevant data, aggregate where possible, and anonymize individual data points only when you actually need to share that level of detail.
Pretty amazing really. They'll even uturn if they are on the other side of the road.
Flatbush Ave and Church Ave in Brooklyn also have a good amount of $1 buses and $1 cabs going up and down the avenue. This is on top of the MTA busses and subway in the area.
Thankfully corporations have proven themselves so trustworthy and benevolent, we don't think twice about giving them the data they used to have to torture out of us. Likewise the governments, that we know are among the buyers [1], are just as beloved and uncontroversial, unlike in the old days.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/14/23759585/odni-spy-report-...
Seriously you want people to use your travel and movement and choice data to make a suggestion list of restaurants for you to order from? How helpless are you?
I like good recommendations better than bad recommendations. The value I get is better recommendations.
Like, I literally update the categories of things I'm interested in, in my Google profile, so I get less useless ads.
People complain about bad and useless recommendations and irrelevant ads all the time. Personalization is how you get better ones.
How many combinations of the restaurants around you do you think exist and are needed to provide that information? Certainly need Uber guzzling down Terabytes of data to rank the local Chiles over the local Applebees.
Lets be honest, restaurant suggestions aren’t a real problem anyone has.
I suspect you don't live in New York City, or another city with a thriving restaurant scene where new places open and old places close all the time and you can't keep track of them all in your head.
If you have problems with restaurant rankings in Nyc you’re not living right.
Oh really?
Sometimes you just need a quick decision, whether you're going somewhere with friends at the last second, or yes ordering delivery and just want something that will be one of the better options. Because there isn't 1 Chinese place in your delivery radius, there are 20.
Believe me, I read restaurant blogs and talk to people too. But that's more for stuff I plan in advance, not last-minute decisions in a neighborhood I don't visit often.
So maybe don't be so quick to judge that others aren't "living right", how about?
I've never heard any complaint about that except from people who work in adtech.
In contrast to high-quality ads that are e.g. for a movie you actually want to see.
It's going to be a conflict of interest like most ads. It's not optimized for you but toward you
-opaque optimization function over which you have no control and is not tailored to you (but yay you can sort by a few predetermined fields)
-willingness of the recommended to outbid one another for your attention
-companies who have paid some baseline pay-to-play vig
If you want real recommendations, talk to someone who isn't profiting off of you.
Are people suddenly moving more between corp A and corp B? Must be something going on, let's buy the stock.
Suddenly multiple Ubers are dropping off people at a residential building during the night? They probably know each other. Let's flag that as a potential risk.