back to article Users: 'Personalized internet? Fuggedaboutit!'

A new research report will make worrying reading for Google and social media companies, as it shows that most consumers don't want their online activity used to personalize search results or advertising. The study of 2,253 adults, conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life, found that 73 per cent of search-engine users didn …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Brent Longborough
    WTF?

    Adverts?!?

    Who reads them, anyway?

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Adverts?!?

      More to the point, who sees them?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Re: Adverts?!?

        If there's a report of a terrible disease sweeping your city, do you dismiss it as irrelevant because you had knowledge of an inoculation, but most other people didn't?

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: Adverts?!?

          @David W.

          No, I dismiss it because it's more H3N1 ammonia flu pandemic scares that are far less deadly than the regular flu and somehow "the media" seems to think that because it seems to be transmitted by albino newts that we should be better prepared for fear that it might kill .02 people per billion but it is spreading faster than any other known disease that they have reported in the last two weeks. Sorry, I know the actual importance but there is this whole concept of crying wolf at the first sign of a dog hair that has me somewhat inured to the whole thing.

        2. jake Silver badge

          @David W. (was: Re: Adverts?!?)

          I let those around me know of issues in my field of specialt[y|ies] if I think it might affect their lives in the RealWorld[tm].

          The people who refuse to listen to me ... refuse to listen to me.

          ::shrugs:: ... Evolution continues.

        3. TheOtherHobbes
          Devil

          Re: Adverts?!?

          Are you saying Google is a terrible disease?

          (And if not, why not?)

        4. Stoneshop
          Headmaster

          @David W. Re: Adverts?!?

          Err, do you rely on adverts for such information? If not, can you elucidate this non-sequitur?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            Re: @David W. Adverts?!?

            It's an analogy, not a non-sequitur - the poster was ignoring [Bad Thing]'s effect on the broader population - and, what's more, stating that it is not in *any case* worthy of attention - because he himself was is affected by [Bad Thing]. It's an even more insidious variation of "They came for the Jews, but I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew".

            My post was an attempt - apparently lost on a good percentage of people here, due to either their or my failure at English comprehension and / or morals - to frame that attitude in a way that would make its fundamental callousness more clear. The annoyance of online advertising is hardly a human rights issue, but if the OP's attitude was general policy (that is, if the OP is not a hypocrite) it would be a pretty gruesome world.

            Basically, my point is: don't be a dick. Don't think that other people don't deserve fairness or respect because they don't know what you do. If nothing else, the day may come with the -OP- doesn't know something -another- person does - and he will likely be upset if, in time of need, that person sticks out his tongue and says, "Too bad, sucker! I guess you should know better than to not know what I know!"

            1. Stoneshop

              Re: @David W. Adverts?!?

              I still fail to see the relevance in comparing someone's attitude towards adverts with their supposed attitude towards general information, as if those are sufficiently equal to be comparable, and also that people are insufficiently capable of distinghuising them and applying the same 'filtering' rules to them.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Adverts?!?

        It is a form of censorship, they decide what they serve up to you, they decide what you see, they decide what interests you.

        If that's not censorship then what is.

        1. redxine

          Re: Adverts?!?

          The difference, of course, being that they aren't stopping you from getting information through something else. No, you didn't chose what would go up on that huge sign outside your flat, or what advert they might show on TV, but you also have the choice to ignore it.

          Need I remind you there are some countries who have no choice at all.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Adverts?!?

          Censorship in the broad sense is when the government prevents certain information from being disseminated, redacts it before distribution, or issues penalties for distribution.

          Censorship can be defined as occuring on a local level - for instance, you could say that El Reg is performing censorship when it refuses to publish your forum comment offering sexual favors to Andrew Orlowski. But that's moderation, not censorship. And obviously El Reg deciding not to have forums at all wouldn't be censorship ('what they serve up to you'').

          Anyone who makes stuff you might go look at is 'deciding what they serve up to you', and certainly, in that sense, decide what you see. But only if you watch what they make. Their making something they think you might be interested in is just about as far as it gets from censorship! Put another way: By your logic, -you're- censoring because you're choosing what to write about, and I'm censoring because I only choose what I serve up to you and what you see. Sorry, but it's utter nonsense.

          Basically, a censor is *preventing you from doing something under any circumstances*. If a company has a monopoly on internet access in your area and does DPI to get rid of mentions of its competitors, then that is effectively censorship of the internet for that area.

          But if TLC refuses to post your complaint about the immorality of 'Toddlers and Tiaras', that's *not* censorship, since they have a right to decide what content goes on their own servers; after all, forcing them, or you, to host material you don't like would be almost as bad as real censorship. And you can bitch about Toddlers and Tiaras anywhere you like.

          *Censorship* is when a guy in China posts a blog entry with the wrong keywords, and it vanishes from the internet ten minutes later. Censorship is when independent-minded Russian broadcasters are 'convinced' to alter their opinions of Vladimir Putin. Censorship is when the Australian government makes it illegal to buy M-rated games. Censorship is when the German government outlaws depictions of Nazis.

          Censorship is *not* when the only thing on television is reality shows, or when you get annoying ads served to you, or when you're beaten in the street and have your watch taken.

          Arguing that someone choosing what to publish is censorship is absurdity.

          There's a lot of bad shit out there. But defining anything in the media world you don't like as 'censorship' does more harm than good. There might well be really bad things about what you dislike, but you shouldn't call something 'censorship' if it isn't censorship - not any more than you'd call a stealthy midnight bank job a mugging. Stick to going after the real thing instead of madly waving your arms without really knowing why.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Adverts?!?

            Censorship is some other bugger removing information before it gets to you. End of.

            El Reg removing commentard posts because they don't want their faces sued off is still censorship. For excellent reasons and I support El Reg in this (the mods haven't deleted a single one of my posts that I wouldn't have when I sobered up, anyway) as I like the site and want it to keep on being here. I don't think advertising is censorship because it's just deciding which flavour of horseshit you're gonna get shovelled at you...you're going to get a set amount shovelled; and if you're sensible you either won't read it or you've screened it out anyway; but nothing is being removed. Piled on, if anything.

            1. Stoneshop
              Headmaster

              @moiety Re: Adverts?!?

              Censorship is when you're being denied *ALL* channels to disseminate your message. Which only an entity like a government, or the Illuminati, can put into effect.

              Not being allowed to post on El Reg doesn't stop you from publishing your missive elsewhere.

              Forum moderation is not, and can not be, censorship.

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

          3. jake Silver badge

            Re: Adverts?!?

            "Censorship can be defined as occurring on a local level"

            No. It can not. I categorically reject that concept.

            Only a .gov can be a censor.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Adverts?!?

              I was thinking about that distinction, actually; initially I'd have gone with your position, but as the guy below says, it's also about all avenues of dissemination being blocked. If a corporate entity becomes powerful enough, it gains that ability, to wit: a monopoly on internet access. For certain communication methods, the alternatives just aren't equivalent, or useful at all - getting your message across via the internet can't be replaced by putting up fliers on the local college campus.

              So, while the vast majority of cases are governmental, I think it -is- possible for corporations to become quasi-governmental organizations (fascist-style?) in their control over certain media.

      3. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

        Re: Adverts?!?

        Even more to the point: who in their right mind ever clicks on one?

  2. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    My "relationship" with any online web entity should end the moment I close my browser.

    I do not want a new best friend constantly looking over my shoulder, checking my email and texts then suggesting things I should spend money on.

    That is what the girlfriend is for.

    1. MIc
    2. jake Silver badge

      @NoneSuch

      Dump her. She doesn't trust you. Even the wife doesn't micromanage me like that.

      The Whippet, on the otherhand ...

  3. Mr Young
    Happy

    Targeted Advertising?

    Even I know the wobblywebbler can trace yer every move. It's a bit different from the traditional TV - nobody knew what you were watching so feedback was not available. Maybe it's time for CB's again - "watch out for the smokey in the bush" etc. Would loads of users with encryption of some sort feck all these web2.0 Advertising Revenue business models? I do not know, honestly!

  4. Azzy

    The reason I don't like it is - well, plenty of people search for personal things. I'm afraid that those searches will "leak" into other aspects of my web use, specifically cases in which someone else is looking at the screen with me - which is pretty common at work (the whole "teamwork" bit) and even more common outside of work.

    I have no problem with the principle - it'll get better results, great - except for the issue with leaking information to people in the real world who you would not choose to share it with. Sure, if those people tried to snoop, they could find it, but I worry that this could present that information to them WITHOUT them trying to snoop.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Personl stuff? You mean a bit like where this guys 1st wife was given a "people you may know" suggestion by Farcebook and it turns out to be the guys 2nd wife? (Note. He'd not divorced the first wife yet)

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17323095

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "You mean a bit like where this guys 1st wife was given a "people you may know" suggestion...

        Well, he was using a *social networking* web site which advertises its ability to *connect you with people you may know*. It did precisely that. Normally, someone you're quite close with will know other people with whom -you- are quite close. The fact that his relationships with those people were... unorthodox... isn't Facebook's fault - particularly when he put his own information on there for the express purpose of other people seeing it!

        Facebook is hardly a shining angel, but in this case, condemning it for that recommendation is a bit like having a peanut analogy, going to eat at a place called "The Nut Bar", and bitching that they served you peanuts when you asked for them to give you a bunch of nuts your friends like.

        ...I should start a Nut Bar. It'd be massive!

  5. MNB

    how can you tell...

    "73 per cent felt the data they got was accurate"

    but that's all you get, a feeling. At the end of the day you can't search the internet youself, you can only compare Google's results against the rest. And only then if you can be bothered.

    I imagine a more telling statistic would be what percentage of users use more than one search engine for a given query to even allow objective comparisons to be made. I expect that number to be close to zero.

  6. Adair

    Duckduckgo...

    I've pretty much given up on using Google for general searches, in favour of Duckduckgo. Silly name but it does the job, and at least makes an attempt to show the user some respect.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: Duckduckgo...

      Yeah, DDG and privoxy feels like Google did in their early days. A breath of fresh air.

    2. DJV Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Duckduckgo...

      Cheers Adair

      Duckduckgo now added to my browser's list of search engines!

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its always interesting to translate activity on the web into real world equivalents

    Imaging: you are wandering round the shops

    You realise that you are being followed by a guy with a notepad. He peers over your shoulder as you wander round, He makes notes of what you look at, checks a list and reaches past you every so often, changing the shelf-edge ads and offers to what he thinks you will be interested in. Every so often he hands a copy of his list to his mates, for them to check, in exchange for a bob or two.

    Now, hands up those of you who would expect the guy to need expensive dental treatment in the very near future.

    Behavioural advertising is just like that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Its always interesting to translate activity on the web into real world equivalents

      'Behavioural advertising is just like that.' - Yes, just like plans to monitor every email are like sending snailmail letters and Royal Mail delivering them first to GCHQ to scan - like you get in chokey (only without the delivering to GCHQ part), and every phone call being recorded - like the Stasi would have had technology been up to it back then - and yet very few of us object!

  8. DrAJS
    Thumb Up

    Personally tailored adverts are good.

    I love adverts. Adverts more closely tailored to my browsing history can only be a good thing.

    In the run up to Christmas I received a brazillion email ads for all sorts of stuff. To be fair the vast majority of them didn't really interest me but in amongst all the chaff were a couple of tasty gems. I picked up one of those Toshiba 1.8inch 120GB drives for 38 quid. That is an absolutely cracking bargain.

    I also got a Lexar 32GB C10 micro SDHC card for 22 quid - another cracking bargain.

    And I got an external USB powered DVD writer for my netbook for 20 quid. One of the ones that can act as AV connectivity for your telly.

    These are things that I wanted but just couldn't find for the price I wanted to pay... until I got the targeted email advertisement.

    Getting the stuff you want for the price you want to pay has got to be a good thing.

    The real problem is I bought 3 three things from the hundreds of emails I received. If those emails were better targeted to me then I would get more bargains and less chaff to delete.

    That has to be a good thing.

    1. Jeebus

      Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

      I wonder if your paid for ad trolling has actually fooled anyone

      Do share, this has to be a good thing.

    2. Chiller4291

      Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

      This article isn't even about e-mails. Its about targeted advertising across then net.

      I don't even know anyone who receives "hundreds of emails" worth of ads. I honestly thought that went out with the popularity of @AOL.com.

      To the general public those ads are spam, and the problem has been handled to the point where there is not a noticeable amount making it through to our in box.

    3. jake Silver badge

      Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

      You actually like, and respond to, email spam?

      You are a part of the problem.

      ::plink::

      1. DrAJS

        Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

        Of course I'm not talking about responding to random spam. I'm talking about responding to advertising from retailers that I have dealt with before who are telling me about specific offers they have that might interest me.

        It is all too easy to become conditioned to respond to all advertising as being bad. Apart from all the very useful services on the web that advertising pays allows to be offered for "free" (including this site) it is also an opportunity for consumers to be made aware of stuff they might like to buy.

        The problem at the moment is that the process is far too random and we all end getting inundated with crap. All that I am saying is that it would seem to make sense to support ideas that have the potential to cut down on the crap.

        And for the record I have no connection with any advertising or marketing firm in any way, shape or form.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "...Apart from all the very useful services on the web that advertising pays allows to be offered for "free" (including this site)..."

          There are adverts on this website [or any others I frequent]?

          Fancy that!

          </ obligatory adblock plug>

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

          "...It is all too easy to become conditioned to respond to all advertising as being bad..."

          Works well for me. But it was choice rather than conditioning.

    4. Mike Flugennock
      Trollface

      Shill much?

      "I love adverts. Adverts more closely tailored to my browsing history can only be a good thing.

      In the run up to Christmas I received a brazillion email ads for all sorts of stuff. To be fair the vast majority of them didn't really interest me but in amongst all the chaff were a couple of tasty gems. I picked up one of those Toshiba 1.8inch 120GB drives for 38 quid. That is an absolutely cracking bargain..."

    5. DrAJS
      FAIL

      Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

      It really is scary how badly you guys have been conditioned.

      All I hear is "ads are bad", "I block all ads", "I not only block all ads but I install software that was advertised to me to help me block all ads". Feel free to miss out on the bargains. Also feel free to miss the entire point of the article.

      Why not do the right thing and block all ad supported websites as well.

      Leeches.

      1. Moyra J. Bligh

        Re: Personally tailored adverts are good.

        Stalkvertising is NOT good - for one thing I doesn't work, and will never work, the reason being that the stalkvertisers only know the WHAT of what we are buying/looking at - they do not know the WHY - until they have a way of determining the why, stalkvertising will always provide useless, flawed and laughable results.

  9. Edward Clarke

    Ad trolling... maybe not

    I suspect that you may be correct and this was an ad troll, but maybe he's onto something. If I want targeted advertisements then perhaps using a separate browser would be useful. I'm not certain about where the data is stored but could you lock up Chrome for instance and set it to forget everything when the browser is closed but use IE9 to do your shopping?

    You'd use chrome to search for your porn^w private stuff and IE to shop. The problem is that I'm not sure that the data is segregated enough for this to be effective. Perhaps add another user to your computer and segregate the data that way? Get the benefit (if any) of targeted advertising and keep the benefit of anonymous surfing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ad trolling... maybe not - Even better

      Do your search and as much browsing as you can using a read-only media.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Meh

        Re: Ad trolling... maybe not - Even better

        "Do your search and as much browsing as you can using a read-only media."

        There is a point where pragmatism becomes paranoia.

    2. nematoad
      Happy

      Re: Ad trolling... maybe not

      Chrome?

      Do you really mean to say that you trust a browser from Google?

      You'd be better off switching to the IRON browser, Chrome stripped of all the Google tracking stuff.

      Alternatively try Firefox with Adblock Plus, Beef Taco, Noscript and so on. Keeps the ads at bay and stops a lot of tracking.

      Also think about Duckduckgo, the newish search engine.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Iron

        Thanks for [to use a horrible 'merkin' expression] the "heads up" on Iron browser.

        I've just spent twenty mins installing it and packaging all my extensions and theme across from Chrome. Result: I now get to use a clone of my favourite browser, without worrying about what it's talking to Google about behind my back.

        Saved a bit of disc space too. Iron is 77MB. Chrome [which is now binned] weighed in at a hefty 330MB. That's a lot of extra code devoted to snitching!

  10. Spanners Silver badge
    Meh

    I think I ignore adverts

    When I am looking for something and use Google I can only think of 1 occasion where I clicked on a Google advert. The rest of the time, my eyes instinctively move away from the adverts.

    When using Gmail, the only time I have clicked on one of its adverts was when I was checking my spam and I clicked on a spam recipe link.

    If adverts are more intrusive, they are negative. The more intrusive or attention grabbing, the more negative effect they have. I see a lot less of those adverts nowadays. Presumably, they have a similar affect on other people.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    hold the phone, here...

    ...If email is the most popular thing, and searching is the next most popular, wtf are people doing -after- they search for stuff? Apparently not actually reading it. There's more searching than anything else, so what makes up the difference? Are people just searching for the hell of it?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: hold the phone, here...

      Don't expect too much logic from statistics.

      It's likely the people being surveyed have developed the same technique I use, whilst doing those 50p a go surveys on sites like YouGov; With a bit of peripheral vision training, I can usually complete one in less than a minute or two, whilst my attention is on something else —and without even reading the questions.

  12. Wile E. Veteran
    Devil

    ROFL

    Anyone who tries to target me based on my searches in Google et. al. is going to offer some seriously weird stuff. I write fiction as a hobby. Sometimes speculative, sometimes pure fantasy, sometimes.... I often search for things related to a plot point in my latest opus, not related to my real life.

    I'm too broke to spend much on the kind of crap advertised on the internet anyway.

    Thank goodness for Ad Block, Ghostery et. al. to reduce the tracking and block the vast majority of the adverts.

  13. Eddy Ito

    Here's the thing

    If they base the searches on my previous searches then they aren't going to give me what I want but what I wanted, past tense. Most of the reason I'm doing a new search is because I either found what I wanted and I'm searching for something entirely different or I was displeased with the results of the previous attempt and would like a _new_ set of data to peruse and not a rehash of the same old shit. Google doesn't seem to understand this so I find both Duckduckgo and even Bing to do a better job.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Edward Clarke

    I think they may use your IP address in conjunction with the ads they try to dump on your screen. So searching with one browser and using another for the buying may not make any difference unless you block ads and don't see them. However they will still have all that info they gathered on you when searching.

    I never click on ads, mainly because I block them. I understand some small sites need the revenue from ads so that is fair enough. There is only one site where I allow ads and that is krebsonsecurity.com, a site well worth looking at. Any and everything google related is blocked by my browsers. I also have a few firewall rules set up for that, especially after I trialled Chrome and found it talking to https://www.l.google.com when I had not even tried surfing anywhere near google. I wanted to see if Chrome really did talk to google, using wireshark to sniff the packets. It sent packets to google as soon as I had entered a web address in the address bar and hit enter. I had entered El Reg's address. And like a few others I use duckduckgo. Works for me.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I need TP

    One of the greatest things about the 'net as it currently stands is the complete random and diverse nature. Where else can you go from footage of Autonomous Quadcopters and end up watching a compilation of 'The Great Cornholio' clips in less than ten minutes?

    Seriously though, I intensely dislike the idea of being spoon fed search results and ads some software thinks I'll like, it's not a great problem for me as I could escape but the 'average' user won't have a clue and will find themself captured in some insular little Internet bubble that they don't realise exists.

  16. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Flame

    How much of a "relationship" do people want with *any* website?

    How much of a relationship do you want with *any* supplier?

    I want to find out if a new supplier is viewed as being any good.

    If so I want to be able to buy the stuff I want ASAP from them.

    I don't want some nappy whose always filling up my email inbox with s**t from them and their buddies.

  17. Mystic Megabyte
    Big Brother

    Censorship

    When super-injunctions were in the news recently I Googled for it and got 256 related stories.

    I thought that If I read the Hindustan Times, for example, I would find out what was happening but Google only let me see the 60 results from the UK. Not that I care about footballers but it makes you realise how evil Google have become.

    I use Gmail but I don't trust Google in the least, maybe it's time to change my habits.

    1. Drew V.

      Re: Censorship

      You can always migrate from Gmail to one of the paying cloud-based email/storage services like Fastmail.fm. Better privacy policy for a small yearly fee.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Censorship

      Maybe I'm being thick here, but what kind of nefarious plot is Google committing which involves their preventing you from seeing the sports pages in the Hindustan Times?

      Or is your argument that Google is obeying a UK government censorship demand, which, given that they operate in the UK, they are presumably (if idiotically) bound to adhere to? And if they could get out of it, what could possibly be Google's motivation to undertake extra effort to break its own product?

      If the former, I'd like to know what it is; if the latter, I'd like to know why Google is called evil for being forced to obey draconian laws passed by the government, which isn't criticized at all?

      1. Alan W. Rateliff, II
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Censorship

        I don't think the former is necessarily indicative of any nefarious plot on the part of Google. Rather, it points to a flaw in the direct advertising model, particularly when dealing with location.

        Because I do a good bit of research for customers, I find that I have to some way confuddle the location sensing used in Google (for one) in order to get proper and relevant search results. Otherwise, I get a lot more returns which are considered relevant to my search based upon my location.

        \I use Google only for business purposes. I will use Yahoo! or DDG for my personal stuff; more and more the latter. I remember back in the day that Yahoo! was king and Google was an up-and-comer, I switched to Google because the majority of the Yahoo! returns on the first page or two were advertisement sites or sites trying to sell something I was researching. That's pretty much come full-circle for me. Although, with the number specialized add-ons I have installed now, Google search results aren't so bad these days.

        Paris, doesn't know where the hell she is, either.

  18. Chris 3

    Chimes with my feelings

    Personally, I've started logging out of Google before searching, to ensure I get proper vanilla searches - perhaps google should add a setting.

    Personalised ads? I'm one of those weird people who is more than happy to give the people who run sites I visit the chance of making a bit of revenue in return. I have ad block installed, but activated only for one or two sites where the ads are particularly annoying.

    If the ads are personalised - fine.

  19. Ole Juul
    FAIL

    This is bizarre

    "Overall, people are happy with the accuracy of whichever search engine they choose."

    How does the word "accurate" apply to search results? Lately I've been searching for circuit designs and ideas. How can the "accuracy" of Google results help me with that? I don't know, but what they could do is filter out anything that has to do with sales so as not to obscure the results I am lookin for. As for presenting something that I'm interested in buying right now, they always get it wrong anyway. In fact the harder they try, the worse they do.

  20. Drew V.

    Benefits of being informed

    As ever, the more people find out about how companies like Google and Facebook really operate, the more they want to avoid dealing with them.

    Whenever this type of situation occurs, the government has a clear duty to step in and educate the masses. We're waiting.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Benefits of being informed

      I'd trust Google over the government any day. And maybe Facebook, depending on the government. And as mentioned above - in the UK, you've got the superinjunction, right? The government forces media to not mention that they can't mention something they're not allowed to mention.

      Now, sit back and think about that. The government is not only *FORCIBLY PREVENTING YOU FROM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING* but is *PREVENTING YOU FROM TALKING ABOUT BEING PREVENTED FROM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING*.

      If Google or Facebook tried to apply that to everyone on the internet - not just their customers - at their whim, and without recourse (which is how the government in the UK does it), there'd be an uproar of apocalyptic proportions. But for some reason, the government gets away with it.

      I just find it strange that a country with ANPR, with multiple cameras on every street operating without oversight (?), red light cameras looking at your car, the government telling the media what it's allowed to talk about, people think that Google and Facebook are the big problems. If you want an evil to fight, look at the guys who have *power*, power, not some suits running around a shiny building thinking about market share.

      Google and Facebook might be able to cause some damage, but our governments can actually go to war, and invade and occupy another country. This is a bit of a different scale. You want to fight for justice? Fight for the right to talk about talking about some football player without going to jail for it. THAT'S censorship.

      1. Drew V.

        Re: Benefits of being informed

        Your view of government is ridiculously oversimplified. The state is vastly more complex than a single private company: it has competing agencies, and at all times there are multiple interest groups trying to compromise on formulating policy. The judiciary can be at odds with the legislative branch over any given issue. Law enforcement agencies may disregard civil rights, but this in no way precludes other government agencies from having an excellent record on e.g. privacy matters and anti-trust regulation. Most importantly the state is subject to the will of the people through the ballot box - in a way that no private company is - which has to count for something.

        Certainly, the British state, as a particular example, is generally obsessed with surveillance and ranks lower than any country in Europe on the privacy index. But this is not a valid excuse to let anyone else off the hook.

        And however much you may want to oversimplify things, lumping the issues of censorship and foreign policy in developing countries together with issue with privacy and the regulation of internet companies does not clarify anything, it just muddies the waters.

        If you do choose to reduce the government to this caricature of yours, then you should realize that Google and Facebook actually contribute to making it worse. Because by storing as much information on people as they are, they make that information potentially accessible to the government. By gathering and storing so much personal information in the interest of profit, Google and Facebook also create the risk of this unprecedentedly complete and complex database on private lives being used for (even more) nefarious purposes by someone else.

        When Google was operating in China, they gave the Chinese state all the information on dissidents that the Chinese asked for. Doing business in that market was more important to Google than safeguarding the individual lives of customers from the totalitarian regime.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Benefits of being informed

          Fair enough - many of your points are good ones. And you're correct that you can't let any one organization off the hook just because someone else is being nasty, too.

          But my point, well or badly elucidated, stands - namely, that in the scheme of things, Google et. al are not the *biggest and most immediate threat*, and that people spend so much time raging at sleazy net companies that they don't have any breath left for the less-trendy but much more dangerous issues.

          It would be easy to think that Google and Facebook are the biggest threats to our freedom, but in the end, they hold no physical power over us. They can't arrest us, they can't jail us, they can't shoot us or force us to stay in a specific area or tell us what God to believe in. Certainly, as you say, companies which collect a ton of personal data can assist the government in performing those actions. But first - they are even then only assisting. Trying to stop the government from controlling you by forcing Google to be more transparent is like trying to stop a schoolyard bully by forcing him to eat right.

          And second - why the trendy companies? How much information does your credit card company have? How much does your bank have? Your cell phone company? Your college? Your doctor's office? Those places probably all have more easily-accessible, better-organized, and much more comprehensive (both in size and quality) personal information. It won't help anyone sell you cup-o-soups, but it -will- help them in myriad more meaningful ways.

          If you work backwards, and instead of starting from 'Google' and ending up at 'Has a bunch of personal information', start from 'Has a bunch of personal information', you're going to end up in a lot of places that make Google look inconsequential. Who the hell cares whether you clicked on an ad when they can find out that you have a breathing problem, a genetic predisposition toward leukemia, your wife is 3 months pregnant (no guesswork necessary with medical records!), that you owe $5600 on your Visa, that you talk to Norbert Q. Silington, who is known to associate with Muslims, on the phone for 6.3 minutes a week, and have a list of everything you've bought since you stopped using cash, including where you got it and what precise time it was.

          This is much worse than anything the tech boys can provide, is closer to government access anyway, and people don't think about it and are used to that information being siphoned off. You want a danger to privacy? Think about your car insurance company perusing your medical records and raising your rates when they find a correlation between obesity, regular donut purchases between 6 and 9am, and rear-end collisions at stop lights.

          Google might have a cookie that remembers that you like Ostrich porn, but if someone has your medical records, they can check your ER admittance history and find out if you acted out your impulses.

          Concentrating on glamorous and fast-changing web companies is well and good, but ignoring boring-ass-database behemoths is, well, like sticking your head in the sand.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    targeting who?

    I left my machine on and because it had a Chrome open my wife borrowed it for ten minutes to look for some stuff. Straight away the ads were filled up with her girly things and it took about a week and some serious browsing of proper gadget sites for it to get back to normal again.

    That said, for customer relationships, it's still better than being hassled to join Ikea Family. What does that do? Talks about their new products all the time, keeps on telling you how to refurnish your home to make it "better", i.e. more Scandinavian, wants you to take shopping trips all the time etc. I've already got one Swedish mother-in-law, I don't need another one.

    When we design a relationship for our customers, we should be very careful which relatives we are trying to emulate.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It does matter but...

    I'm personally as privacy obsessed as the next commentard, but I have to laugh every time Amazon's "recommendations" try to pimp a flood of kettles at me after I've just bought one, or thrust a large selection of lavishly illustrated wildlife coffee table extravaganzas at me because I've just bought a book on squirrel pickling. Amazon "ads" I keep for fun, the rest are toast courtesy of Wladimir Palant and friends, but I'm pretty sure they'd also be some way behind the curve too.

    I personally think they'll never really get it right, and certainly in a not in a way that doesn't ultimately offend. About 20 years C4s excellent Equinox ran a programme on a a guy who was considered the ultimate marketing Guru of the age, a bloke called Richard somethingorother with an especially large and luxuriant beard of Viking proportions. He confidently assured us that with the information and technology then available, he and his mates could target postal junk mail so accurately to our desires that we'd be delighted to receive it, then went on to explain how. By one of those happy coincidences that make you smile forever after I started to get the first junk mail of my life, presumably triggered by the student bank account I'd just opened. The campaign, which lasted a good couple of years, started off by pimping (quality print too!) a series of limited edition hand painted 'collectable' plates featuring British wild birds, the first being a Kingfisher. When I didn't bite at that one in a lifetime opportunity they moved on to (limited edition naturally) handpainted thimbles replete with "free" display shelf.

    All this to a student of twenty on a photographic course with whose serious interests didn't really go beyond drink, mororcycles, music, the opposite sex and photography.

    In the years since I don't think I've recieved a single piece of unsolicited marketing that has got even close to something I might actually want. Amazons tie ins with searches are usually crude and basic, particularly when it comes to books or music and do little more than annoy, and googles text ads, when I used to see them were not much better at hitting the spot than Richard Lushbeard and friends in spite of the infinitely greater wad of data they had on me.

    I think advertising and data pimping as a model for the internet is nothing more than a relatively resilient bubble that will stop delivering with the same rapidity as it appeared to start, probably in the not too distant future. By its intrusive nature it is a blind alley, self limiting and containing the seeds of its own destruction.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Googles market share

    Im not trying to be anti this and pro the other but i just wanted to share a wee thought to those numbers.

    Android phones within that time frame have sky rocketed and correct me if im wrong but isnt their default search site google?

    Given the number of units sold of these things it does kind of stand to reason that their market share would increase accordingly. Or are these results desktop only? in which case i retract my comment, if they are global however its a little bit unfair to say things are as bad as they seem for all the others as the last time i checked, not one mobile device uses yahoo as its default search (or are they using bing now.....i dunno), anyhow just food for thought!

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    most consumers don't want their online activity used

    to personalize search results or advertising

    LOL, but who the f... cares? It's not about what they want or what they like or dislike, it's about milking them. Us.

  25. Moyra J. Bligh
    Megaphone

    Hint for the marketing morons - Have a good destination, that is easily searchable (this means no flash), let people find what they are looking for, don't shove moronic ads in peoples faces. Pull not push!

  26. Andy 17
    FAIL

    Maybe it's just me but targeted ads just don't work..

    I don't get the point of targeted ads, they seem pointless to me - a case of trying to sell you something that in all probability you have already bought.

    Example - I want to buy a new 5.1 amp so i google some reviews to find the best one that meets my spec and budget. I then google for the cheapest reputable dealer in the UK that stocks the amp I have selected and go ahead and buy it. Now having done that what is the point a few days later of bombarding me with ads for various 5.1 amp's including the one I have already bought?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like