[eleveriven]

The headline makes it sound uniquely sinister, but most of what's described here is just the modern adtech stack doing what it's been doing for a decade. The real tension is that advertisers want attribution, sites want revenue, and users want privacy and the current system optimizes almost entirely for the first two

[Intralexical]

The modern adtech stack is uniquely sinister, especially compared to its antecedents in society. TikTok is not only one of a select few big tech companies that dominate it, but (according to the article), it's becoming increasingly invasive "in unusual ways compared to its competitors".

(I have no idea whether that second part is true, as most of the article seems to be spent explaining the concept of the tracking pixel for non-technical readers.)

[elischleifer]

100% - targeted advertising lives and breathes on data - this is par for the course

[Intralexical]

It may not be news to you personally, but that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy for the general public.

[thinkingtoilet]

The real tension is users don't want to pay for anything which is why the ad landscape is what it is.

[godelski]

Why should they pay?[0]

You point to the market but these market giants gain a lot of their stature from the free and open work done by others. The market is not the decider of the value of utility. If it was we'd not hear about donation campaigns for FOSS. We wouldn't hear stories of how there's a single developer working on critical software on nights and weekends. We wouldn't hear about yet another FFMPEG wrapper making millions while trying to demand free work from FFMPEG. We wouldn't hear that stuff because the market would be compensating them.

While there are some things where there is no alternative, you can get pretty far with FOSS, if you know where to look. I'm not trying to say people shouldn't be paid, but I am saying that just pointing to the market is too simplistic of an answer.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

[Intralexical]

Framed another way: The market rejects the product at the price it would cost to provide, so companies have turned to addictive designs, skeevy tracking, and information asymmetry/user ignorance to recoup their investment.

[Dylan16807]

Ads optimize for getting every single penny without any pushback from bad effects, which is why the ad landscape is what it is.

Tossing in more paying users wouldn't fix scummy ads. And ads could exist without being scummy, but it would take some other kind of pressure.

[allthetime]

advertisers act for themselves. sites act for themselves. users need to act for themselves and optimize their own privacy.

[idle_zealot]

Advertisers are organized, site owners are organized, and users are not. You need coordination if you want to see the balance changed.

[godelski]

  > users need to act for themselves and optimize their own privacy.

In some sense I agree, but I also think you've oversimplified things.

Even when you're highly technically skilled it can be extremely difficult to impossible to regain the level of privacy the average person had just 50 years ago (probably even just 20). This is a bar too high. One should not need years or decades of expertise to take back what is a broad/universal desire.

It comes down to consent. The users aren't technologically sophisticated enough to know how their data is being weaponized against them. Let's be honest here, even on places like HN we often see claims about "ads don't affect me" and "I don't care if they want to sell me a better product". As if 1) you aren't affected, 2) it doesn't matter if your friends/family/peers are affected, and 3) that ads are just there to sell you products and exclusively ones that make your life better. How the information is being leveraged is too abstract for most people and it takes time to process it.

The advertisers literally take advantage of this fact.

But where I do agree is that we need to make our voices heard. The barrier is too high for most to achieve. "Install a pihole" may be acceptable on HN[0] but not for the broader public and certainly is far from being a strong defense alone[1].

Where I do agree is that we as developers need to make these tools easier to use and help lead those conversations and help educate people.

But if you are saying the solution is "git gud, protect yourself" then I think you are on the wrong side and even harming yourself. Unfortunately internet privacy is like vaccinations, we require herd immunity. Without those around you protecting their privacy, your privacy is at risk. It is not a personal decision, it is a social one.

[0] And is the average HN user actually going to implement encrypted DNS and know how to pick better DNS servers? Or are we just going to argue about the trustworthyness of 1.1.1.1 vs 9.9.9.9? Are we even going to talk about things like 1.1.1.2 or base.dns.mullvad.net? These are still the basics!

[1] How many people know you need to change your browser settings? That your browser is likely picking a DNS server for you.

[godelski]

  > The headline makes it sound uniquely sinister, but [it's not]

Does this matter?

TikTok is one of the, if not the, most popular apps in the US and the world[0]. It makes sense to talk about the biggest offenders.

You're right that the problems are more systemic and TikTok is far from alone, but at the end of the day, if this is the gateway to having the broader conversation, I would not dismiss it[4]. Laws that reduce the harm that TikTok is doing applies much more broadly than to TikTok. That is a win for us. It is difficult to write laws to specifically target a single company, and whenever that happens they serve as leverage to go after others too.

Treating TikTok as the face does not absolve others of their actions. It may shift focus off of others, but frankly, we're living in a time where focus is incredibly difficult to achieve.

I don't think you're wrong, but we've been trying to have the more nuanced conversation for over a decade and it doesn't catch people. So I'm personally okay with targeting an extremely popular platform like TikTok or Meta and using them as the gateway to the more nuanced conversations. IME if you just start by talking about "Surveillance Capitalism" it is common for people's eyes glaze over or they throw up their arms as the problem seems so large it is insurmountable. IME being more specific, talking about specific companies and specific actions[5] is the right gateway. It enables the deeper conversations without overloading people. Remember, you've had years to process all this and they're still new. Give them time.

--

[0] In the US looks like >136M adult users[1], which looks to be about half of all adult Americans[2], or 66% of Americans between 18 and 65[3]

[1] https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/us-tiktok-users-statisti...

[2] (Adults = 136e6 / (340,110,988 * (1-0.215)): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045224

[3] Intended as upper bound as certainty there are some seniors on TikTok.

[4] Unfortunately I think it is easy for bad actors to use whataboutism and that while I don't think you're doing this, bad actors try to snake in through claims like yours. Using the legitimacy of your claim to control the conversation and shift focus (the same way dog whistles are only intended to be heard by dogs).

[5] DO NOT start with the most egregious, as that's too abstract and leads people to believe you're a conspiracy nut. Same shit as when talking about Snowden, it doesn't matter if you can show them the evidence, the claims appear more like that out of a movie than reality and it doesn't feel like we live in the dystopia where we see this kind of tech on screen.