Please identify the specific mechanism by which you think that an ad for Bingo Card Creator appearing on a page about bingo cards erodes the privacy of Ethyl Smith, a hypothetical schoolteacher in Kansas who is currently viewing the page about bingo cards. It is not obvious to me that this is "automatic" or that there are various poorly specified data being collected which helped immensely other than "It looks like she wants bingo cards. Maybe we show her an ad about bingo cards?"
I think showing an ad for a bingo card creator when Ethyl Smith searches for one is the perfect (and original) mechanism for targeted ads.
What I worry about is Ethyl Smith's emails / chats / SMSs (via hangout) / location and map searches &c. all being collected for the sole purpose of showing her the perfect targeted ad.
In my personal opinion, I don't mind Google using their algorithms and that to extract data from all those sources to display to me relevant things that I'd actually buy, then show me stuff I don't care about. It's not like Google employes thousands of people who pour through your email, chats, hangouts and other stuff to be like "yup, this ad would be perfect for them."
I agree. I use gmail, so I can't in all honesty say that I have an objection to less privacy in return for targeted ads.
But I do get pissed off that the NSA can tell Google to give them that data without my permission and with no benefit to me (I don't live in the US so there's no security benefit to me even if the NSA was increasing US security).
Advertising industry erodes the privacy of Ethyl Smith.
Bingo Card Creator supports and is supported by the advertising industry (and, in particular, corporations which encourage the erosion of privacy).
Every individual can easily excuse themselves from this process by saying there is no direct link between their own commercial effort and privacy erosion, and it's very easy to ethically justify what you individually are doing. After all, no single person or entity is literally saying or thinking "let's screw Ethyl Smith".
Personally speaking, I no longer find this a very good excuse.
If you are against advertising, how do you cease the intrinsic and instinctive self-advertising of human beings?
The study, published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, found that 60 percent of people had lied at least once during the 10-minute conversation, saying an average of 2.92 inaccurate things.
OP >> 90 to 99% of ads deceive and manipulate people into consuming a product
This thread has been characterised with the opinion from people like yourself that advertising is immoral, akin to lying, manipulative, deceiving etc etc <insert descriptor>.
My point stands - advertising is just an extension of social interaction. If you hate advertising, you essentially hate yourself since you advertise continually.
Ah, I see that you are ignoring and misrepresenting the point that I made. Good for you.
Anyway, to respond to your point:
I do not welcome advertising as an extension of social interaction, no more than I welcome someone shouting at me in the street as an extension of social interaction.
Not misrepresenting anything. You are just incapable of accepting that advertising has a place in a market economy and that across society human beings are hard-wired to advertise, even if just using body language.
You have somehow compared this to shouting at you. Whether you welcome advertising or not you do do it. Arguing against advertising is like arguing against breathing.
Carry on downvoting me; I care a little above 0 about my karma score. It just shows me that advertising detractors cannot form a coherent justification for their views.
