[gwerbin]

Almost certainly they are using that for audience segmentation and ad targeting. Clever and disgusting. This isn't the invention of some evil moustache-twirling executive, this was the invention of an employee or group of employees who value money more than morals. We should think of such employees as henchmen.

[luxuryballs]

if they do a better job at showing me an ad that might be relevant to me, how is that disgusting? if I have to see an ad at all I at least want them to give it their best shot

[alt227]

I cant believe that people still have the attitude that the trillions of dollars being invested in all this technology and tracking is just to give them a more relevant ad.

Do people really not remember scandals like Cambridge Analytica, and realise that these ads combined with social media feeds can be used to literally control and manipulate peoples decisions and behavoir?

Theres a reason Facebook and Youtube just got sued for being intentionally addictive attention machines.

[caminante]

You're glossing over the nuance of the Cambridge Analytica scandal or at least I don't see how it's connected here.

Facebook was a party, but not the protagonist.

- a Cambridge researcher (Aleks Kogan) created a personality quiz FB app advertised as academic research

- users had to consent to download the app

- the app nefariously scraped users' friends' data (300k users unlocked 87 million users' data)

- the information was sold to Cambridge Analytica

- who then used the information to profile American voters

LinkedIn already has all of this information from the information you feed it. Scanning for more information provides more refined views, but LinkedIn already has your graph.

[alt227]

The parent post said:

> if they do a better job at showing me an ad that might be relevant to me, how is that disgusting?

To me that signalled that the author of the comment doesnt really care what is gonig on behind the scenes if the result is a better and more relevant ad.

I see this attitude often from people who dont seem to understand the severity and seriousness of online tracking which leads to psychological profiling which leads to manipulation.

> who then used the information to profile American voters

You seem to have missed off the most serious bit at the end. Cambridge Analytica then used the data to profile millions of voters, and purposefully target divisive and flammable political material to specific suggestible people in order to manipulate outcomes.

This same thing is done all the time by all tracking and ad companies. I think this thread has gone beyond just LinkdIn scanning your browser extensions.

[caminante]

I agree that it could come off as gross negligence to not care about what happens with your data.

My point is that LinkedIn already has enough information (We've willingly given them!) to manipulate outcomes and if they're doing something nefarious, then it's already too late.

Whereas Cambridge Analytica involved bad actors (not Facebook) duping customers and re-selling their data. I don't think those elements are necessarily in play here.

[alt227]

Fair enough, thanks for the polite retort.

I think I was just getting on my high horse at the fact that the whole internet ad machine is doing this terrible thing for society and nobody really seems to care that much.

This thread was more about Linkdin specifically scraping data instead of maniuplative ads, so apologies for derailing.

[luxuryballs]

is the manipulation of decisions and behavior not just a way of saying sales and marketing? I agree that it def can be used for bad things, but so can most tools/systems

[alt227]

Ugh, you are probably right and that makes me sick to think about it!

[buellerbueller]

It's not just about ads. The same data and tech is also about locking you up and identifying you for deportation you if this admin thinks you are in the USA without permission.

[gwerbin]

And laundering responsibility. If the government uses a contractor to identify deportation candidates using this data, and they get it wrong, the government can at least try to shrug it off and blame the contractor, whose job is in part to absorb public outrage for these sorts of things. Whereas if the FBI wiretaps you and still gets it wrong, it's a lot harder to deflect blame.

[gwerbin]

Imagine if someone was following you around with a clipboard writing down everything you do, then rifling through your bookshelf to make note of certain books on the bookshelf, and then using that to target ads at you.

You'd say that's a ridiculous and illegal thing to do without you explicit consent, right?

Maybe you personally don't mind and would be happy to offer that consent. But they're doing it without your consent, regardless of whether you want it or not.

[luxuryballs]

by that analogy this is not following me around in my house, it’s when I go into their house that they log it?

[LtWorf]

They share the data, so they have 24h coverage and peek inside from your windows when you're home.

[GrinningFool]

The rules say we should default to assuming good faith in comments. But it's hard when I see this comment in 2026.

[LtWorf]

“A pensar male degli altri si fa peccato ma spesso ci si indovina.” — Giulio Andreotti

(it's a sin to assume bad intent, but you often get it right)

He was a very controversial italian politician.

[luxuryballs]

what would the bad faith motive even be?

[buellerbueller]

$$$, one of the classic bad faith motives. Most of tech nowadays is subsidized by advertising and profiling to some degree, often quite a large degree.

[janalsncm]

Aside from the fact that no one is asking for that, there is no law that prevents that ad targeting data from being sold to the government for the purposes of…whatever they want.

[franktankbank]

What if someone makes an ad thats not an ad at all, maybe its a rabbithole designed to fuck with you. Maybe its designed to enrage you.