[Intermernet]

>I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks

The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your education level, your family size and many other details.

[downandout]

And what exactly is wrong with that? So some marketers know that someone in the world likes to do X, lives in a certain place, likes to buy things, etc. It's not tied to your specific identity - it's just a collection of data. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

[thaumaturgy]

In the first place, your repeated assertion that you are anonymous in the data is wrong. A combination of zip code, date of birth, and gender will uniquely identify 87% of the people in the country [1], and I assure you advertisers have far more detailed information than that. In some cases, they have your DNA. [2]

Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still proudly proclaims, on their home page, that they "[use] data to change audience behavior." Ads on Facebook are being used by different groups to inflame political tensions [3]. The tracking widgets used on nearly every site you visit now means that some company, somewhere, knows everything you're interested in. They are in the business of using that information against you, to their benefit, whether it's in crafting sensational stories with clickbait headlines to get more of your attention, or selling you products you don't need by preying on your insecurities, or just trading it for money to other companies who will use it in new and creative ways -- like CA, who specialize in tilting voting behavior. [4]

Thirdly, you're counting on advertising firms having perfect security and never accidentally giving your information away to people who shouldn't have it. Advertising companies just don't have good history when it comes to data security [5] [6] [7].

People seem happy to ignore the ramifications of all of this, because it's not like they're feeling physical pain or discomfort or noticing any other immediate negative effect when more tracking data is collected or they see another ad. But this is a form of psychological warfare, and at least some of this stuff is designed to corrupt your thinking, to get more of your attention and change your opinions about things and convince you that it's all very harmless.

We've strayed away from tracking data and into advertising, but they are two sides of the same coin.

[1]: http://latanyasweeney.org/work/identifiability.html

[2]: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/09/07/ancestry-com-can-us...

[3]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-ads/majority-of-...

[4]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/technology/what-is-cambridge...

[5]: https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-sa...

[6]: https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/halloween-security-breach/

[7]: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/208249/a-s...

[downandout]

You obviously feel very passionate about this subject, so there is no point in attempting to convincing you to change your opinion, other than to reiterate that it is not a commonly held opinion.

I did want to respond directly to one of your points that is dead wrong. With regard to this statement:

>Secondly, that information is used to influence you. Cambridge Analytica still proudly proclaims, on their home page, that they "[use] data to change audience behavior." Ads on Facebook are being used by different groups to inflame political tensions

There has been no scientific evidence that CA, the Russians, or anyone else was actually successful in their efforts to use Facebook to influence the election or "inflate political tensions". In fact, CA's own customers say that it didn't work [1]. This whole thing was a manufactured controversy.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-facebook-...

[thaumaturgy]

You confused my statements regarding CA with a separate issue regarding political ads on Facebook, covered in the Reuters article I cited (which didn't mention CA at all).

If CA were a "manufactured controversy", I think HN would've cottoned on to that quite a while ago, rather than the various comments (among thousands on the topic now) expressing surprise that people are suddenly paying attention to this:

50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16606924

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641550

How Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook targeting model really worked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719403

Leaked email shows how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook first responded in 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16667805

The Cambridge Analytica scandal isn’t a scandal: this is how Facebook works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16621885 (solid top comment on that thread)

Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16690721

Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16644067

I'm not, by the way, providing any of these links in my comments to try to change your mind. I realized several comments ago that you've got an entrenched and unmovable opinion that pervasive user tracking on the internet is no big deal. I've been providing these links for anyone else reading who might be interested in the topic.