Re:AdTech Sucks: This Time It's Personal IDs
by salawat on Friday June 14, 2019 @01:35PM
(#20184874)
Evil: profoundly immoral and wicked
I follow that with an interesting anecdote!
During the filming of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the actress playing Nurse Ratchett, the principle antagonist in the film, suffered a breakdown resulting from animosity built up amongst the film crew. Her mere portrayal and demonstration of wicked/evil tendencies was sufficient to taint the emotional atmosphere.
Point being:
When one is in an environment, and feels it necessary to try to say "I'm not evil! X, Y, and Z are evil! What I'm doing isn't!", it is generally a sign of cognitive dissonance being brushed up against.
There is an argument to be made, that if what the AdTech industry does is so effective at bringing up feelings of hostility, revulsion, and repugnance once properly understood, it may very well be to an extent "evil" due to a demonstrated capacity to generate widespread feelings of immorality.
It takes time, and effort to elucidate the various ways in which this industry triggers fundamental moral avoidance circuits.
AdTech violates moral principles of "being a good host", "professional discretion", "unimpositive (not imposing on one's guests or making light of imposing on or dominating their attention)", "non-intrusion", "being courteous in the immediate term", and "conservative in taking actions that could have far reaching consequences in the long term".
These are fundamental underpinnings of the fabric of positive societal interaction, and are to differing levels globally recognized.
Taking and violating such fundamental precepts, and in ways difficult to understand and extrapolate by the Common person illustrates a callous disregard for what makes society work, and implicitly sets off those alarm bells you mentioned earlier.
I'm not even being outright inflammatory; just pointing out the essential characteristics of the arrangement. If a barebones explication of what you do violates so many fundamental behavioral assumptions, and generates such animosity when brought out into the light of day, you really need to sit down and give it a long think.
Is delivering a better Ad really worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Is delivering a better Ad worth endangering the framework that got us this far?
If your answer is still yes after giving it intense thought, you need to spend more time amongst your detractors, because you've likely only seen one side of the matter at issue.
I follow that with an interesting anecdote!
During the filming of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the actress playing Nurse Ratchett, the principle antagonist in the film, suffered a breakdown resulting from animosity built up amongst the film crew. Her mere portrayal and demonstration of wicked/evil tendencies was sufficient to taint the emotional atmosphere.
Point being:
When one is in an environment, and feels it necessary to try to say "I'm not evil! X, Y, and Z are evil! What I'm doing isn't!", it is generally a sign of cognitive dissonance being brushed up against.
There is an argument to be made, that if what the AdTech industry does is so effective at bringing up feelings of hostility, revulsion, and repugnance once properly understood, it may very well be to an extent "evil" due to a demonstrated capacity to generate widespread feelings of immorality.
It takes time, and effort to elucidate the various ways in which this industry triggers fundamental moral avoidance circuits.
AdTech violates moral principles of "being a good host", "professional discretion", "unimpositive (not imposing on one's guests or making light of imposing on or dominating their attention)", "non-intrusion", "being courteous in the immediate term", and "conservative in taking actions that could have far reaching consequences in the long term".
These are fundamental underpinnings of the fabric of positive societal interaction, and are to differing levels globally recognized.
Taking and violating such fundamental precepts, and in ways difficult to understand and extrapolate by the Common person illustrates a callous disregard for what makes society work, and implicitly sets off those alarm bells you mentioned earlier.
I'm not even being outright inflammatory; just pointing out the essential characteristics of the arrangement. If a barebones explication of what you do violates so many fundamental behavioral assumptions, and generates such animosity when brought out into the light of day, you really need to sit down and give it a long think.
Is delivering a better Ad really worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Is delivering a better Ad worth endangering the framework that got us this far?
If your answer is still yes after giving it intense thought, you need to spend more time amongst your detractors, because you've likely only seen one side of the matter at issue.