[stephantul]

This has bean a long time coming. This is a stark reminder that you should consider who the future stewards of whatever you are building might be.

We built a vast surveillance network under the guise of servings ads and making money, and lost track of how this power could be abused by an entity not aligned with our own values.

[ianbutler]

Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it.

[stephantul]

Well I guess I mean the pubic in general. I also don’t necessarily mean willfully creating technology that can be abused.

For example, we all stood by when we let Twitter and other US-based social media become the main way politicians communicate with the public. This has, in my opinion, had disastrous consequences on how they communicate and actively blocks politicians from achieving consensus.

This is to say that you don’t need to have actively worked on something.

[emodendroket]

We are all very impressed, I assure you.

[AndrewKemendo]

Good for you

What are you doing to organize around that?

Or is it just “I decided to leave so my hands are clean” self adoration?

[fauchletenerum]

From day one everyone who worked on these ad-tech surveillance systems knew they had the capability for abuse. They were built to come as close as possible to the legal limits of surveillance and in several notable cases crossed that line. This isn't a surprise to anyone

[tosapple]

The way I understand it, which may be dated: is that if it's automated or robotic it doesn't qualify as an "unreasonable search or seizure".

[potamic]

There was a narrative here earlier that I'd rather trust Google/Apple with my data than any other company or any government. The end result is the same in the end. When it comes to privacy, the only thing that works is zero trust.

[IhateAI]

It was always intended to be used that way, the programmatic advertising industry is a product of US Nat Sec.