Is it just me, or is the Internet becoming less usable?

[Ham]

....The ads make me shout "f**k off" and "c**t" at the TV a lot and would not persuade me to buy a product any more than a kick in the nads would persuade me.....

Funny that's what most people say, and yet businesses still advertise because, you know what? it mostly works even when you hate it.

[Kim]

....The ads make me shout "f**k off" and "c**t" at the TV a lot and would not persuade me to buy a product any more than a kick in the nads would persuade me.....

Funny that's what most people say, and yet businesses still advertise because, you know what? it mostly works even when you hate it.

For values of 'works' that are biased towards the metrics by which marketing people use to assess the efficacy of their shitverts than actual sales.  Goodhart's law applies here as much as it does everywhere else.  It being easy to count the number of clicks on a given shitvert, or to ask people to name 5 brands of deodorant, or count the number of in-sewer-ants policies with a Free! cuddly meerkat^[1] that have been signed up for, or whatever, but relatively hard to determine that your shitvert is actually leading to those additional sales.

Which is presumably why shitverts with good gags unrelated to the product, or that fill your BRANES with earworms or have you swearing at the telly are so popular.  Even if you vow never to buy $product because of an annoying shitvert, you're thinking and talking about about $product^[2].

File under 'modern life is rubbish'.


_{[1] Spilchucker wants to change that to 'marketeer'.
[2] Case in point: I'd never heard of Pelican bieks until they were mentioned by P@nd3m1c Pr0duckt10nz™®}

[Afasoas]

There's already evidence out in the ether, showing how data has been harvested and processed in order to generate and effectively target messaging in political campaigns. This enables political parties or groups with deep enough pockets to get their desired result at the polls.

At an individual level, there are concerns and possible harms that arise out of mass data collection. At a societal level, it can mean the death* of true democracy.

*should such a thing have ever existed.

Actually what you are describing is a feedback loop. Y'know, you might not like it (and I don't either) but it could be described as true democracy, you just have to convince the people what they want is what they want. Democracy has never and can never exist in a vacuum, a good orator and poor policy maker has always won more votes than a poor orator and good policy maker. Stinks, doesn't it?

If the feedback loop was in fact producing policies that mattered to voters, I would agree with you.

The emphasis however, is on messaging. And it's putting that message across to those who, according to the data, can be persuated to vote or change their vote.

This is different to developing a policy based on voter data, putting it into a manifesto and publicising that policy to the electorate.

It's nuanced but it's pivotal.

[grams]

YouTube pays nothing for its content; it piggybacks on others' creativity (or lack thereof).

YouTube pays quite a lot of money to people who upload videos, at least those large enough to qualify. I don’t think any of the other platforms do.

If you squint hard enough and ignore the nazis it’s almost a healthy business model.

[L CC]

The other platforms do too. Tiktok, insta, facebook, all pay out if your milkshake brings enough boys to the yard.

[Ham]

There's already evidence out in the ether, showing how data has been harvested and processed in order to generate and effectively target messaging in political campaigns. This enables political parties or groups with deep enough pockets to get their desired result at the polls.

At an individual level, there are concerns and possible harms that arise out of mass data collection. At a societal level, it can mean the death* of true democracy.

*should such a thing have ever existed.

Actually what you are describing is a feedback loop. Y'know, you might not like it (and I don't either) but it could be described as true democracy, you just have to convince the people what they want is what they want. Democracy has never and can never exist in a vacuum, a good orator and poor policy maker has always won more votes than a poor orator and good policy maker. Stinks, doesn't it?

If the feedback loop was in fact producing policies that mattered to voters, I would agree with you.

The emphasis however, is on messaging. And it's putting that message across to those who, according to the data, can be persuated to vote or change their vote.

This is different to developing a policy based on voter data, putting it into a manifesto and publicising that policy to the electorate.

It's nuanced but it's pivotal.

So only valid messaging is allowed, and people unable to tell the difference should therefore not be allowed to vote. Oops. Or maybe the people wielding that influence should not be allowed to do that. That feels the most reasonable doesn't it? After all we that way could ban Murdoch from doing what he does. I'd like to, as well, but actually that completely undermines free society and speech more than Murdoch. Who sits in judgement? Who is allowed to lobby? We may hate the way that it has turned out, but it is us and our society that got us here.

[Afasoas]

You are conflating different things. It's very simple.

1. Enforce existing electoral and data protection law. For example, laws around transparrency in who is funding political advertisements.
2. Ban micro-targetting of political campaign advertisements.
3. Prevent processing of personal data for political campaign advertising purposes unless individuals have expressely consented to it at the time of collection.

None of that is harmful to free society.

We may hate the way that it has turned out, but it is us and our society that got us here.

No one searching for an insurance quote would think that their data is going to be passed onto a political campaign. No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Society as a whole, is not responsible for those things. In neither case was consent sought or given.
No one asks to be lied to or deceived.

[Kim]

No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Objection: Facebook was built for perving at classmates, so the users were the product from the outset.  We didn't reasonably expect it to become popular enough to be the de-facto form of online communication and authentication, and therefore a politically relevant manipulation tool.

[Afasoas]

No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Objection: Facebook was built for perving at classmates, so the users were the product from the outset.  We didn't reasonably expect it to become popular enough to be the de-facto form of online communication and authentication, and therefore a politically relevant manipulation tool.

Should everyone signing up to Facebook be reasonably expected to know that? The only people I'd even half expect to know that are people who work in the technology industry.

[Jaded]

No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Objection: Facebook was built for perving at classmates, so the users were the product from the outset.  We didn't reasonably expect it to become popular enough to be the de-facto form of online communication and authentication, and therefore a politically relevant manipulation tool.

Should everyone signing up to Facebook be reasonably expected to know that? The only people I'd even half expect to know that are people who work in the technology industry.

Many users of Facebook don't actually know there is an Internet.

Also many users of Facebook don't know that a significant proportion of the population aren't on Facebook.

[rogerzilla]

No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Objection: Facebook was built for perving at classmates, so the users were the product from the outset.  We didn't reasonably expect it to become popular enough to be the de-facto form of online communication and authentication, and therefore a politically relevant manipulation tool.

A certain Big Four accountancy firm had to let some of its male employees go after it emerged they were playing a game called "Beat the *****" (name omitted to protect the victim) whereby all new female starters' photos on the corporate intranet were compared against ***** for attractiveness, ***** being considered the height of female beauty at this point early in the millennium.  So presumably a pixie-faced brunette.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

....The ads make me shout "f**k off" and "c**t" at the TV a lot and would not persuade me to buy a product any more than a kick in the nads would persuade me.....

Funny that's what most people say, and yet businesses still advertise because, you know what? it mostly works even when you hate it.

ISTR that a certain brand was so confident that it would always be first in the publics' mind when making a choice that they stopped advertising.  Maybe it was Parker pens, maybe not, I can't recall.

Anyway they soon had to resume advertising when sales hit the floor.

[Karla]

No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Objection: Facebook was built for perving at classmates, so the users were the product from the outset.  We didn't reasonably expect it to become popular enough to be the de-facto form of online communication and authentication, and therefore a politically relevant manipulation tool.

Should everyone signing up to Facebook be reasonably expected to know that? The only people I'd even half expect to know that are people who work in the technology industry.

That depends how big a fan they are of David Fincher films.

[Kim]

Fair point.  I remember when it was first available to random BRITONS, it was pitched as a more functional free-as-in-beer version of Bullies Reunited (remember that?), which was enough to make me wary of it from the outset.  Nothing I've seen since has improved my impression of it, but I accept that if you were later to the party (or less internet-savvy) it probably came across as a thing for organising bike rides or sharing photos of the grandchildren or selling things with your phone or whatever.  Which is the crux of the problem, of course.  Users are perfectly happy to share other people's data in exchange for dancing pigs.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

No one would reasonably think that a platform built for on-line social interaction would be used to collect data for use in political advertising.

Objection: Facebook was built for perving at classmates, so the users were the product from the outset.  We didn't reasonably expect it to become popular enough to be the de-facto form of online communication and authentication, and therefore a politically relevant manipulation tool.

Facebook was inspired by bedroom startup last century called 'ClassMates' in the US. It was follwed by British 'Friends Reunited'.  From what I remember, they were micro examples of all the evils that social media would soon bring upon us in macro form.  We were warned and Zuckerberg knew exactly what he was doing.

Admittedly I have an FB account - I had to open it to get money back from a dodgy online seller. It has been dormant ever since.

[rogerzilla]

Friends Reunited (long defunct, killed off by Faecebook) mainly seemed to be a means for people to hook up with old flames and was, by all accounts, a bit of a marriage-wrecker.

[ian]

Friends Reunited (long defunct, killed off by Faecebook) mainly seemed to be a means for people to hook up with old flames and was, by all accounts, a bit of a marriage-wrecker.

It was good for a moment to look up all the people you were at school with and what they were doing now, which was broadly nothing interesting*, and remember why you didn't much like them. Oh and for ex-girlfriends/boyfriends who dumped you, just to confirm how bad their decision was (there is no guarantee however they didn't get off with a svelte and sexy, bazillionaire and are now floating through their middle years on a luxury yacht in the Caribbean while you're doing night shifts in a Swindon Tesco).

*the school weirdo was sent down for molesting a sheep, and the school headcase for murder x 3, neither of which was much of a surprise.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The Internet golden age is definitely over.

• People are less inclined to go to the trouble hosting their own content - largely for reasons of cost/convenience. Instead they have switched to platforms that turn both the content producers and consumers into products.

Could someone, or preferably several someones, explain what is actually meant by phrases like this and "If you're not paying for it, you're the product"?

I think what is meant is that your data is harvested and sold, ads are targetted at you, and your presence is generally monetized in numerous ways by numerous people/organizations. But that's not really being a product, that's being a consumer.

No, that's not being a consumer. The data collected ("Your Electronic Life") is harvested, much in the way of crops, and that is sold as a product to those who want to buy it to sell stuff to the right people. Your perspective determines if you think this is a good or bad thing, but you (that data anyhow) are very much a product. It is what is produced as a result of the content provider's efforts.

Good explanation, thanks. It doesn't quite fit with being a product though, to my mind. As you say, the data collected, and what is done with it, is the product. To follow your crops analogy, it isn't the crop (what grows) that's the product, but the wheat or potatoes or whatever that is harvested, and then the things that that becomes. And, once you've harvested your crops, you're left with an empty field; whereas after harvesting personal data, the persons still exist. The people are the providers (witting or unwitting, willing or unwilling) of the product, rather than being the product itself.

[Kim]

It's not just data collection, though.  It's also finely-tuned access to people so that they may be influenced (usually to buy stuff of vote for something), based on that data.

[Jaded]

It's not just data collection, though.  It's also finely-tuned access to people so that they may be influenced (usually to buy stuff of vote for something), based on that data.

Are you thinking what we are thinking?

[Cudzoziemiec]

The Internet golden age is definitely over.

• People are less inclined to go to the trouble hosting their own content - largely for reasons of cost/convenience. Instead they have switched to platforms that turn both the content producers and consumers into products.

Could someone, or preferably several someones, explain what is actually meant by phrases like this and "If you're not paying for it, you're the product"?

I think what is meant is that your data is harvested and sold, ads are targetted at you, and your presence is generally monetized in numerous ways by numerous people/organizations. But that's not really being a product, that's being a consumer.

No, that's not being a consumer. The data collected ("Your Electronic Life") is harvested, much in the way of crops, and that is sold as a product to those who want to buy it to sell stuff to the right people. Your perspective determines if you think this is a good or bad thing, but you (that data anyhow) are very much a product. It is what is produced as a result of the content provider's efforts.

Good explanation, thanks. It doesn't quite fit with being a product though, to my mind. As you say, the data collected, and what is done with it, is the product. To follow your crops analogy, it isn't the crop (what grows) that's the product, but the wheat or potatoes or whatever that is harvested, and then the things that that becomes. And, once you've harvested your crops, you're left with an empty field; whereas after harvesting personal data, the persons still exist. The people are the providers (witting or unwitting, willing or unwilling) of the product, rather than being the product itself.

I've come across something that answers this, accidentally, in a way that makes sense to me – perhaps thanks to the context rather than the words. Not a product as such but a commodity.

We talk about politics, culture and travel becoming globalised, but on a more fundamental level, Spivak is correct that what really flows across the planet are various forms of money and information: investments, corporations, infrastructure, server farms and the combined data of all the digital platforms, sluicing invisibly like wind or ocean currents between nations. We users voluntarily pumped our own information through this system, turning ourselves into flowing commodities, too.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/jan/16/the-tyranny-of-the-algorithm-why-every-coffee-shop-looks-the-same

[Cudzoziemiec]

And on a completely different note:

“Globalisation takes place only in capital and data,” the literary theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has written. “Everything else is damage control.”

Love that name! Two parts Indian to one part Slavonic.

[rogerzilla]

YouTube shittery continues to increase, with regular pop-ups suggesting I pay £12/month to stop the shitverts they know I ignore.  It's basically extortion.  The latest bug/feature is showing the countdown to skip shitverts, then restarting the timer with more shitverts instead of showing you the content.

Another piece of cynical bastardy is the pop-up that says "fewer ad breaks for this long video".  Yeah great, but they're two unskippable minutes each now.

The best way to watch YT is on a real browser with a good adblocker, although they are enacting countermeasures against those now.  Unfortunately, most of my YT viewing is on a "smart" TV, where you get the full enshittified experience.

[barakta]

YouTube seems obsessed with the increasingly disgusting and weird hero-wars.com adverts and excessive gambling. Both make me angry. I'd even prefer Hello fucking Fresh or Fuxking Wix.

[spesh]

TBH, when it comes to social media these days, I think the only winning move is not to play.