What's wrong with showing me relevant ads?

The problem is the method of building the "profile" that determines what's "relevant" for you.

Google lets you turn off "personalized ads" if you don't want them. https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922?hl=en

That only lets you stop seeing the personalized ads. It doesn't say it stops tracking you.

What's wrong with them building a profile of me as long as I consented to it? Are you opposed to consenting agreements between willing adults and companies?

Well besides the creepy factor of what this data could be used for, the average user doesn't "consent" to it, because they have no idea it happens.

Then in this case the problem seems to be ignorance. Ignorant people will always find themselves in trouble though. Anyway, you still haven't proved that they wouldn't be ok with this even if aware of it. I've talked to many people about this and most were ok with it. I think you're assuming a lot here about what others care about.

It seems like you have a problem with people consenting to things you don't like, just like homophobes have problems with gays because they personally don't like consenting to same sex intercourse and think gays are ignorant of some facts (they're going to hell etc), maybe people don't care or believe in these facts and are just enjoying themselves, ever thought of that? What's the problems if other people enjoy things you don't? Live and let live.

Because, in 5 , 10, or 200 years. When societies (or rules) change, it will be used to discriminate or worse.

"Whoever doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it.'

Well, if we have people willing to kill us based on the type of socks we like or porn we enjoy, we have a bigger problem than the fact that this information is being collected. It's not like people willing to kill for such ridiculous reasons would be stopped by the lack of available data. Crazies don't really care about fact and data in general. I think you're assuming a bit too much about them.

Obligatory xkcd about it https://xkcd.com/792/

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.

People have always said that, it's just that the mediums we had before were much more censored than the Internet.

“You are the product of t.v.(...) you are delivered to the advertiser who is the customer. He consumes you”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_Delivers_People

And if at some point, the industry shifts to direct brain-stimulation to influence behavior, someone will say "how is that different from targeted advertising? People seemed to have no problem with that..."

How exactly would you expect that "having a problem with it" manifests? By not watching TV and not reading any kind of newspaper?

Fast-forwarding through ads has been an extremely popular feature for VCRs.

The precision with which it can be done.

First off: tu quoque. You're changing the argument, which I'll take to mean you've conceeded the point.

But since you ask, it's very much the same, and people have very much had a problem with that, which raises a second fault with your argument: false premise.

Noam Chomsky. Pretty much his life's work.

Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. (NB: Mander is a former ad executive himself).

Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher himself, wrote of the fundamental problem in 1909, Commercialism and Journalism. https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft

I.F. Stone spoke of the problem in 1974 on "Day at Night". The video is now on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g

Robert R. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" criticised generally the television industry, in the 1950s. http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_li...

A couple of Stanford researchers in the 1990s recognised the corrosive effects of advertising on incentives in the provision of online services. The prior awareness didn't save them from faling into the same pit: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

Niel Postman. Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders

Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, Merchants of Doubt looks at influencing on a much broader basis.

Banksy's art is, in many regards, a direct refutation of advertising. The letter attributed to him on the topic is originally by someone else however. It remains exceedingly good reading: http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/

There's a large literature on the subject.

Generally, psychological aspects of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychologi...

Criticisms of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=critici...

At Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising

There is an option somewhere in Google settings to turn off personalized ads.

Which makes the ads much poorer. You'd need a particular philosophy to want to check that box; most people, I think, would use a blocker.

Why isn't it in my interest to be shown ads that offer me goods and services of my interests?

Because ads are evil. They are bedrock of all worldwide bullshit and scam. They make seller don’t care about reputation, competitors and eventually product quality. They transfer products completion into ads competition. They make all products more expensive because of this “advertising tax”. They turn off customer’s head to make a zombie who buys best advertised product instead of one with the best quality. They are good only for advertising companies and scammers.

Ads are a great way to make your product known. Have you ever ran a business? At some point if you want to participate in the market of voluntary exchange of good, services and ideas, you need to advertize. The only countries where ads are forbidden and nowhere to be found are North Korea and before that USSR. Very depressing places. I love seeing people expressing themselves and showing up what they've built and trying to sell it. What's wrong with that? Advertizing oneself is one of the most human treat we have and has always existed one way or the other.

Yes, I’m talking this from my business experience. I’m selling software. It was cracked and thief is easily selling it with adwords now. He has top ad’s position in Google (despite several dmca notices and not only from me) and Google doesn’t care about it as long as they get good money from thief. Google must share responsibility with the scammers for false advertising and the customers and sellers should have a way to make Google pay for promoting scam. The ads cost should be proportional to the possible damage.

I'm amazed that isn't obvious to you, they are there to influence your buying habits in the interest of the advertiser.

Only (mostly?) if you don't know that they're trying to.

That's dangerous thinking, you know it.

Is someone forcing you to use their services? Stick to DDG if you don't like the contract.

I think the point is that they're payment enough, no need to feel hypocritical for disliking the captcha.

I do that not because I want to not be tracked, but because I am bad at computers and don't want to accidentally install a virus because blatting and starting again would be an bunch of effort and it's not like my stuff is backed up or anything.

Sometimes though I wonder if I shouldn't turn adblock off, for example, and then I'm at work and some website auto-plays video and I remember.

Imagine, if you will, a scene like this. It is dusk. You are out running in the park, trying to get exercise before the last light fades. Suddenly you realize: A group of people have been closing on you, boxing you in from all sides.

You try to run. Your muscles burn, you heave for breath. They match your pace exactly, coming closer... and closer... and closer. You cast your gaze desperately from side to side. Isn't anyone around? You're scared. You're not a strong man, and these people all look like body-builders and criminals. No, now that they've come closer, you're not sure they look like men at all. Is that a tattoo, or is it... is it a tusk?

Then you stumble over a rock, fall, and scrape your hands. While you're rolling around and trying to get back to your feet, the men stop in a tight circle around you. They look down at you.

"What," you begin. Your voice is quavering.

"Take backups," the men say, as one. "Take backups, for you never know what may happen."

Then they disperse into mist.

Having backups is important. Not needing to use them, however, is still a very good thing.

GREAT NOW I AM HAVING NIGHTMARES

A job done, and well done.

And people that don't, often have to buy/run antivirus, anti-malware and rootkit scanners/cleaners.

Say, do you run also without a firewall and keep mail and other ports open, just to prove you are less paranoid than the rest?

In many respects, yes.

Travel to/from the United States without some social media footprint is on the verge of becoming suspicious in and of itself.

Benjamin "Mako" Hill has long since observed "Google has most of my email because it has all of yours". https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...

Facebook creates shadow profiles of non-member identities.

It goes on.

Did I claim to be using their services? Stick to what you know if you don't like reading what I actually write.

I was questioning someone feeling "hypocritical" for using other google services but disliking their new recaptcha tool.

As for "the contract": I'd wager that for most people, most contracts they see/sign are easier to get a clear understanding of, than Google's business model of "free" services.

> As for "the contract": I'd wager that for most people, most contracts they see/sign are easier to get a clear understanding of, than Google's business model of "free" services

Oh bull shit. The contracts you sign (or click I agree to) are thousands of legal definitions and words that most people don't even read, much less understand.

Google's contract is very simple: We show you ads (the more we understand your interests, the more targeted our ads) and you get to use our stuff without monetary cost.

Have you tried asking your non-IT acquaintances whether they knew and understood the tracking part? Because my experience is that most people don't, even if you think it should be obvious.

> We show you ads (the more we understand your interests, the more targeted our ads) and you get to use our stuff without monetary cost.

And where do they spell that out?