[moksly]

I work as en external examiner for various CS students, and in my country they do a couple of internships at real companies as part of their degree. At some point around five years ago, or perhaps a little before that, there started being psychology students on some of the courses. A trend that has since grown quite a bit, especially if you happen upon a group project involving mobile gaming.

It’s something I would have likely never met in my my career, but there is an amazing amount of social engineering going on a these places. 20 years ago if you got the odd group of students who did anything gaming related, it would typically be very nerdy, terribly executed and often a very socially awkward exam even for CS standards. These days it feels like I’m very likely examining a group of people out of which two or three are likely to be my executives in a decade if they chose to pursue a career in the public sector.

It’s really interesting how the humanities have crept in and in some way taken over, isn’t it? And all because we didn’t want to pay a coffees worth of money to have the online yellow pages. It’ll be even more interesting to see what happens to this sale of social engineering once legislation eventually catches on.

[ASlave2Gravity]

Blimey, that's super interesting. The ad model needs to die IMHO. We need regulation from a super-national level if you ask me. Bitcoin should pay the way for a paid-for internet. Anything to get ads off the web.

[rauhl]

Ads are definitely a large part of the problem, but they are not the only problem. Ads are what turn us from customers into cattle, yes, but I think that online services could be almost as bad if we paid for them. Indeed, micropayments might actually result in many of the same issues as ads do: in a world with micropayments for each page load, publishers would still want to increase engagement, because that would directly increase their bottom line.

What we need is precisely the thing so many of us do not want: we need subscriptions. Subscriptions provide a buffer. They give a publisher room to breathe: he can predict what his next month will look like; he can model what his next year will look like; and he can allocate his resources appropriately. The problem is that subscriptions are high-friction, and cannot compete with ad-driven ‘free’ content and services.

[thu2111]

Ads don't turn people into cattle. That is a huge exaggeration, or at least, you should only speak for yourself.

The sort of ads that make the big bucks for companies like Google and even Facebook are niche or local firms buying very simple ads that let people know they exist. Brand advertising on publisher websites is not the biggest source of value, and these tech firms started out by trying to get rid of it entirely. AdSense's entire reason for existence was to chip away at the terrible brand ads that littered the web beforehand, and of course, those are the only kind of ads that you get on other media so they above all others have done more to rid the world of that kind of thing.

Publishers can use subscriptions today if they want to. That's no solution to psychological manipulation. Look at how many cable or satellite TV news channels there are which spend all day trying to create as much outrage and hate as possible, all paid for by subscription.

I haven't watched it but the documentary is probably junk. Seeing the Sundance Festival logo and reading the blurb is enough to get the gist of what it'll be like - a bunch of social activists who want you to feel weak, useless, sheep-like and filled with hate towards people who dare to make and give you useful services. No thanks.

[randomsearch]

Can’t believe this didn’t get downvoted more. Is this a joke?

Watch the film. The speakers are mostly ex-employees of the big tech firms.

Your take is completely incorrect, unsurprisingly, given you haven’t even seen it.

[soylentcola]

Examining my own behavior, I do see a lot of the last part of your comment. Even as someone who recognizes the potential for abuse when you have incredibly detailed models of people and can use them to manipulate behavior, it's not as obvious as another subscription fee.

I have a strong bias against any sort of automatically recurring charge. In some ways I'm very illogical about it--yearly subscriptions like Amazon Prime or my VPN aren't too bad because I can see the cost and not worry about it for a while. But I've just been trained through experience to see anything monthly (or less) as a way to disguise the real cost through stretching it out (even if I can easily do the arithmetic and see the annual cost.

Regardless, knowing about the potential for abusing the data compiled on my behavior is enough to make me feel a bit "icky" or mildly uneasy. It's enough to make me avoid using anything from Facebook, for example. But it's not enough to keep me from checking my subs on YouTube or using Google navigation when I drive somewhere new.

If it was as simple as paying $100/year to use Google services without data collection it would be easy, but then what stuff would stop working? A good bit of the usefulness of Google nav or whatever comes from how it collects usage data or ties in with my calendar to remind me when I need to leave to make it to an appointment on time.

And then what about all of the other things I interact with that collect data? Do I need to figure out what they all are and pay them a yearly fee as well? What about the ones who decide it's still easier and more profitable to skip the whole thing and keep making their money by profiling my behavior?

Instead, I end up avoiding Facebook properties, blocking ads, never using rewards cards, trying to ignore the OG offenders (credit card companies), and still feeling uneasy about all the info being analyzed about me daily.

[ASlave2Gravity]

What if we actually got paid for the data collection? Like UBI through the tech giants. Maybe then you have an issue where it's like the more you use the more cash you get, or maybe it's just a flat payment i.e. if you have even a single facebook account and they've used your data in some way, you get the payment?

God, this is when the lawyers get involved! YUCK!

[satotious]

The system has been built to track you in order to show you more relevant ads. Whilst micropayments wont solve every problem pointed out in the documentary, it will offer an alternative business model which doesn’t require pervasive tracking to work. We are working on this problem, shameless plug: satotious.com

[tomp]

> Bitcoin should pay the way for a paid-for internet.

Simple economics tells you that this will never happen. Companies simply have much more money to spend than consumers do.

Indeed, if you ban “ads”, companies will simply invest in “non-ads” to influence your behaviour - fake news, real news (more-or-less thinly veiled PR disguised as news, a la Paul Graham’s “submarine”) or buying whole news outfits (hint hint Bezos).

The only way to stop competition in marketing is to (re-)start competition in product / technology - but that seems a very difficult problem (we’re in the midst of a physics/tech stagnation).

[lcamach84]

I agree with you, but I will mention that Netflix is a paid service but nevertheless it uses similar strategies to keep us hooked.

[randomsearch]

Incorrect. Netflix does not attempt to change your real world behaviour.

[TeMPOraL]

Advertising needs to be targeted directly. Otherwise, companies rightly reason that why should they opt for direct payments only, when they can take direct payments and shove ads in anyway?

[rtx]

Do you happen to know what titles they go by?