Even if Google isn't out to exploit this, basically the people running the ads can. John Oliver sort of did this, but geographically: https://youtu.be/wqn3gR1WTcA?si=GBKBNrQ-x0QKvwBh&t=1390

This will expose your user data. This will allow you to get targeted, and it will allow you to get targeted for long term interests versus short term ones. God forbid someone with a political agenda ever decides to act on this data ...
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/wqn3gR1WTcA?si=GBKBNrQ-x0QKvwBh&
  
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  
  I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
- If someone is swayed by a political advertisement, they are, by definition, consuming content they desire.
  
  Goal should be to change what those people desire rather than fight against them consuming ads/media.
  
  If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire.
  
  That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different.
  
  There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about.
  
  If you can be manipulated by a targeted ad you were already into that.
  
  No normal person stumbles across Andrew Tate on YouTube due to an algorithm and thinks, "This man is my savior."
  
  You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’.
  
  I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.”
  
  That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation.
  
  No man I'd say you are the one with the skewed definition of "normal"
  
  I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit
  
  Perhaps to a perfectly rational being, but I don't happen to know any of those myself.
  
  Just wait until you learn that people lie on the Internet ...
  
  I mean that's specifically what this is about, yeah?

You've viewed 359 comments.