Don't you want to protect the people who are bothered by it? Do we only fight against illegal stuff when it bothers us?

When did I say anything about (not) protecting people?

Who’s talking about illegal stuff?

What they are doing is illegal in many parts of the world, even when it's on the ToS. They also deploy dark patterns to work around laws that protect users.

When you write "this doesn't bother me" when people complain, what should they think?

Someone making money off your data does not bother you? I mean you could sell it yourself, why let Samsung do it?

If you could point me in the direction of where I can sell my TV screenshots I would be much obliged.

"Selling your data" is marketing nonsense created for disinformation. Companies like Facebook, Google or even Samsung don't sell data. They collect data and get advertisers to pay them to target ads on their behalf. The user data never leaves their system (unless hacked, but that's a different topic).

No, it doesn't bother me that they show me ads about products I'm actually interested in based on what they know about me. Not only it means that I don't get bothered with things I would most likely not be interested in, it also means that advertising costs go down significantly allowing the market to produce very niche products which would otherwise not be viable. Targeted ads is the best thing that has happened to the economy in the last decades.

This isn't true. Facebook/Google may not be selling your data, but companies like them absolutely are. Data aggregators exist, and they're all about buying your data, creating data products from them and then selling them on to marketing organisations.

Whichever companies are selling data, they are not like Facebook or Google then. I'd say that they're completely different if they literally collect data and sell copies to third parties. This would be illegal in some parts of the world but sure, maybe some do it.

What I'm saying is that Facebook, Google and Samsung companies are not in the business of selling data like the common disinformation messaging would have you believe.

If ad brokers (the Googles of this digital world) ever wanted me to pay attention to them (and their ads), they would give me a toggle to switch ads on and off as I please. As long as a simple choice like this isn't made available to me, then it's uBlock all the way. Or zero interaction from my end with the ad broker's platforms.

I recon from an individual perspective, ads are not a game changer to consumer behavior. They only burden the individual with more decisions to make when choosing a product to buy. Infact, in today's standards they only serve as a way to guess-timate person X bought toothpaste B because of ad campaign Z. Therefore, give us (ad broker Y) some of that kickback. When I still would have bought the toothpaste anyway.

> they would give me a toggle to switch ads on and off as I please

Why would they let you disable ads on their ad-supported platform? There are plans like YouTube premium if you want no ads in there, which I think is worth it and I do pay for it because it is a much better YouTube experience.

By using ad blockers, you are merely taking away from everyone else using the platform. I wish these companies did more to stop ad blockers.

>I recon from an individual perspective, ads are not a game changer to consumer behavior.

That's because from what you wrote, you don't seem to understand how these ad platforms work.

> Why would they let you disable ads on their ad-supported platform?

Because they stand to gain (immensely) from building my trust about their model of advertising if I choose to participate in it. Or maybe am being too optimistic and everyone would disable ads 100% of the time given such an option? Would be an awesome experiment for Google :)

The problem with these platforms you call ad-supported, is even when you pay a subscription for premium the content creators are allowed to slot in sponsored segments which isn't exactly my definition of an ad-free experience.

> By using ad blockers, you are merely taking away from everyone else using the platform. I wish these companies did more to stop ad blockers.

Taking away what exactly? If you could be a bit more specific. Also, you are free to dream in your utopia where ad blockers don't serve a need, just don't expect everyone to follow you there.

> That's because from what you wrote, you don't seem to understand how these ad platforms work

Would be happy if you could explain where I got it wrong.

> Because they stand to gain (immensely) from building my trust about their model of advertising if I choose to participate in it.

They're not gaining out of thin air. They're making a commission on how much they are saving for the advertisers (and hence the advertisees). They're creating immense value, of which, they are taking a small commission. If they were not creating immense value, the advertisers would have no need to use them. They would continue to make their businesses big enough to buy Superbowl ads (or equivalent).

> Taking away what exactly?

By blocking the ads, other people are paying for YOUR use of these services. It's the moral equivalent of not paying taxes, although it is not illegal... yet.

> Would be happy if you could explain where I got it wrong.

For example, you think this is how ad targeting by Facebook and Google works:

> in today's standards they only serve as a way to guess-timate person X bought toothpaste B because of ad campaign Z

And you think this is true:

> ads are not a game changer to consumer behavior.

It's a complete waste of time for me to debate with someone who thinks ads don't affect consumer behavior.

> They're creating immense value, of which, they are taking a small commission. If they were not creating immense value, the advertisers would have no need to use them.

I will just leave this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25623858

You fail to prove why my logic is wrong and answer your own questions instead, then on top of that make sure to sprinkle vague insults at me! I won't bother providing rebuttals to the rest of your arguments. You make sure you have a good day, moron!

The people selling data are the data brokers who hoover up store card data, credit card purchase data etc. etc.

Those are the REALLY creepy ones, and yet, we never talk about them ...

They're selling access to the data, your data all the while you have little to no idea.

The issue you raised about getting targtted ads is fine, I don't think many will dissagree with you, but its about having the option to turn it off. Theres the disconnect. When you're forced into an ecosystem that you cant tailor, it leaves a bad taste.

>but its about having the option to turn it off

Facebook, Samsung and Google let you turn this functionality off. They're legally required to do so in parts of the world but they give this option to everyone.

Me either. I have 0 problem with letting a machine seeing that data. Even if a human actually saw it I'm not sure if I would be bothered.

Edit: From the links you sent it doesn't explicitly say it sends screenshots. It sounds more like the ACR is run on device and then the result of that is sent to Samsung.

This sentiment tends to really ruffle feathers around here and I don’t understand why.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument#Criti...

They are not saying they are okay with it because they have nothing to hide; they are just saying that they don't mind. It just doesn't bother them. And they also aren't arguing that it shouldn't bother you if you don't watch anything wrong or that every TV should spy on their owner.

Saying "I'm not bothered by it" is a statement that suggests you should not be bothered by it too.

- I'm angry because people let their dogs poop on my garden

- People let their dogs poop on my garden too and I'm not bothered by it!

Yep, what about it?