[hkai]

I can't quite understand this. By "exploiting" you simply mean targeting ads?

The real harm seems to be from the tech giants censoring speech and policing payments, but what's the harm that someone targets a pair of shorts that I might like or show an ad for a conference I might be interested in?

[Lio]

It's a question of control; no should mean no.

Some people don't want to be tracked or monitored by advertising companies and it should be enough to just say so without companies like Facebook always trying to sneak tracking back in via dark pattens, shadow profiles, etc, etc.

For example once you've seen a website offer you the same product for different prices based on arbitrary tracking it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

[hkai]

From your answer and other people's answers I feel like everyone has been brainwashed to focus on minor things like this, and totally ignore the elephant in the room.

So Facebook and Google know your religion, politics and food preferences. So what? How can they harm you with this?

They harm you when they choose what you can say, who you can talk to and who you can do business with. But literally what's the harm of ads? Making your computer a bit slower? That's such a tiny issue it's not even worth talking about.

[turbinerneiter]

I.e. ads, facebooks feed, endless scrollers like 9gag -> they like to use dark patterns and exploit tricks against the human mind to keep and guide your attention.

The harm if targeted ads depends on your viewpoint.

A targeted ad might serve you something you were looking for anyway, or it might manipulate you into spending on something you don't actually need. I.e. look at Instagram influencers, showing off their fake perfect live, making the viewer feel small and then try to buy the same happiness by buying the same product.

At best, ads are information that you need, at worst, they use psychology to manipulate you.

[Freak_NL]

I think you might have the meaning of 'i.e.' (that is, namely) confused with 'e.g.' (for example).

[turbinerneiter]

Thank you very much, I am proud to say that I did this wrong for at least 10 years :D

Thanks!

[Tijdreiziger]

There is a shortcut to remember this: 'e.g.' for 'example given' (and therefore, 'i.e.' for 'that is').

('E.g.' doesn't really mean 'example given' in English - it means 'exempli gratia' in Latin. But it's a useful mnemonic.)

[xenophonf]

I also use "in essence" for "i.e." even though it's actually 'id est' in Latin.

[JohnFen]

In my mind, when I see i.e., i think "in other words", and when I see e.g., I think "for example"

[hkai]

Seriously, you're worried about someone spending more time on their phone or spending more money on goods and services? Spending their own money — not the public money? That's what freedom is to you? Not the freedom to talk to whoever you want, say whatever you want or pay whoever you want?

[turbinerneiter]

I have no clue where you derive any of these things from. I certainly never said any of it. I never even made a claim a out freedom.

I was talking about how ads, tv programming, trackers and such have a tendency to create a positive feedback loop, which leads people towards less quality and mindless consumption. And about a fun idea from a movie, to break this feedback loop and replace it with another one, that promotes higher quality content.

You then started talking about a different topic and are now accusing me of not being interested in free speech.

[chalst]

hkai's mind is like a hammer: whenever it sees an opinion relating to human choice, it sees a nail.