• Cosmic Cleric
    link
    English
    -2
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    there has been some research a few years ago that proved the opposite, though.

    Could you supply a link for that article? I would very much like to read it. Also, I would want it to be a recent article, to be believable for the current conversation we’re having.

    just a bunch of anecdotal evidence

    Well, we all are just black boxing this, as we do not have access to these corporation’s servers and what data they collect.

    But you have to admit, that in my case at least, Occam’s Razor would definitely point you in a certain direction.

    Edit: You should also take a look at this old article from Vice.

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36 months ago

      https://gizmodo.com/these-academics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188

      this is the most recent one I know of.

      you have to admit, that in my case at least, Occam’s Razor would definitely point you in a certain direction.

      it points me in the direction of you either being in the demographic currently targeted by the ad provider, or you having been shown the ad before without noticing it, and only paying attention after talking about the topic, and experiencing frequency illusion afterwards.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          Gizmodo? 2018? Yikes.

          it’s a summary of a paper posted here: https://recon.meddle.mobi/panoptispy/

          in that same article is one from Vice, which backs up what I’ve been stating and assuming

          do I get to say “Vice? 2018? Yikes.” now?

          feel free to link more up-to-date research results.

          • Cosmic Cleric
            link
            English
            -3
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Gizmodo? 2018? Yikes.

            it’s a summary of a paper posted here: https://recon.meddle.mobi/panoptispy/

            Thanks for the link. Checking the bottom of it …

            © Copyright 2012-2024 by David Choffnes, Northeastern University. This work is generously supported in part by a DHS S&T contract (#FA8750-17-2-0145), a Comcast Innovation Fund grant and the Data Transparency Lab.

            … and from the paper …

            This material is based upon work supported by the DHS S&T contract FA8750-17-2-0145; the NSF under Award No. CNS-1408632, IIS-1408345, and IIS-1553088; a Security, Privacy and Anti-Abuse award from Google; a Comcast Innovation Fund grant; and a Data Trans- parency Lab grant. Any opinions, findings, and conclu- sions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our sponsors.

            Ignoring ‘Gizmodo’ for a moment, not sure if its an unbiased paper or not (its a bit ‘sus’), and the date is from research done in 2017 and published in 2018. Today’s corporations most likely do not follow the same practices they did in 2017.

            in that same article is one from Vice, which backs up what I’ve been stating and assuming

            do I get to say “Vice? 2018? Yikes.” now?

            Yep, you sure do, especially since it comes from the article you supplied. The point being that showing proof from 2017 does not necessarily cover today’s situation.

            But it definatley defines that listening in on your phone used to happen back in 2018 at least. Wish we had today’s “word” on the subject.

            feel free to link more up-to-date research results.

            Considering I was asking you originally, you shouldn’t expect one from me. I was asking you about your initial point, since you were replying to mine, and would not have if I already the information that backs up what you stated.

            Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)