Well, he doesn't care that facebook tracks him, and you apparently don't care that ~~youtube~~ sorry, google tracks you.

That isn't unpopular opinion unfortunately. Otherwise the world wouldn't the way that it is right now. We live in a surveillance apparatus that shapes our behavior. Nobody really cares except for the fringes of society.

If you poll people if they care about their privacy of course they will say yes. That is a rather superficial question. When you start polling in meaningful manner such as the uses of personal data the more the opinions become mixed. Some people really do think tracking and ads can provide them useful services. Such a rapacious form of capitalism is the prevailing mode of our time.

I think to some people the concepts of behavioral modification is too sci-fi to be believable. The topic sounds too much like ramblings of a conspiracy nutter about mind control. For others probably they think they're smarter than psychological conditioning.

Boot licker.

I'm just glad I checked the comments here before wasting even one second watching the video.

This has to be ragebait, absolutely ridiculous

Profiling and tracking do not - I repeat - do not serve your convenience. Showing you ads that you are likely interested in means a higher chance to sell you things you don’t want. Mixing in private messages etc and feed it into an LLM will result in extremely targeted advertising with highly convincing content.

This whole fuckin video is bonkers.

I’m looking for, I get targeted Google ads about camera stands from Adorama and B&H Photo that do match my criteria. I like that when I get into a rabbit hole about traveling to Singapore or buying a new laptop, all of the content that I get fed is relevant to what I’m interested in.

He picked out the one instance where high-powered advertising produces a positive result, while ignoring the 90% of it that is sinister in some way. Big categories of that:

• Creating a need that didn't exist before by manipulating people
• Bending the nature of the underlying content to its ends (producing news that communicates the message rich people want expressed to the masses, instead of informative journalism) (producing TV shows that lull people into a stupor so they'll be susceptible to the ad breaks, instead of that which will wake them up and create genuine engagement and a vehicle for creative expression) (disrupting people's use of social media to communicate so as to manipulate them into being better consumers) (etc).
• Providing a way for someone who makes a worse product but has more money to spend to promote their worse product over a better one that doesn't focus as much on marketing

You can join me or not in my tinfoil-fit view, but I would say that 90% of the impact of advertising on the landscape is one of those things, and a very very small percentage of it is devoted to what he's talking about, good honest people who make good honest products and just want to laser-focus on customers who happen to want those products and make it easy for them to find out about them. Personally I'm pretty skeptical that these things with seeing ads for camera stands or his Singapore trip actually happened that way, but even if they had, it formed a very small percent of the ways that advertising impacted his world that day.

5 or 10% of the time, Google and Facebook miss the mark and they show me ads that I’m not actually interested in or recommend videos that aren’t even relevant.

5 or 10 per cent, yeah? You must be fascinated by ads for things. Personally they form an offensive tide of bullshit against my own mental landscape, 95% or so of which I'm not interested in.

Something else that I wanted to note is that this effort has not only led to better advertising but better everything. This is the primary reason that the UI and experience on apps and services like Chrome, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok are so good

What in the ever lasting fuck are you talking about

Pretty much every single time that ad-supported-ness comes into the equation, the service gets worse then it was without it. BBC is better than Fox News. Mastodon is better than Facebook. Craigslist is better than everything. When the service is designed to be good, it's good, and when it's designed to draw ad revenue, the "being good" part of the goal becomes, by definition, secondary. I won't say the two are always incompatible, but specifically with the examples he lists, they're largely incompatible, and being good has become secondary.

I can kind of be charitable about what he's saying, and agree that Chrome's UI is superior to some purely-open-source browser that doesn't have the same level of funding, or that Youtube is more reliable and performs better than some bodged-together video service. But I cannot possibly fathom the kind of brain that would look at the modern world and use TikTok or YouTube as examples of things that are "so good" and lead to "better everything."

Among other things, the designed-to-be-addictive-to-drive-advertising-revenue nature of how they're designed creates real harm in the real world. Youtube dopamine loops trap young kids whose brains aren't developed, and playing with tablets all the time fucks up their brains. If you've been around kids in the modern world you've seen this. Political advertising and shill-friendliness on social media produces bad political outcomes that cause genuine tragedies in the real world. Few people involved in creating those products seem to give a shit about any of that, because they're so focused on maximizing ad spend. I would not describe that as "better everything."

To me this is the real harm in the system he's defending. It's not that tracking a person for advertising to them, in itself, creates that much harm in every case. It does sometimes, but his short-sighted view of the problem that most of the time that specific part of the behavior doesn't cause too much harm, is actually valid. But the wider scope of letting advertising rule our modern world even though it's objectively making everything progressively shittier for no benefit to everyone except a handful of already-rich people who don't need any more money, is a very big problem, and defending that system because one particular aspect of it isn't the part that's really hurting people seems obviously wrong.

Somebody else "not caring" about being tracked is only a valid response as long as their lack of care doesn't affect me. With social networks like Facebook, which create social graphs based on self-reported connections, I am affected.

Maybe other people have the ~~privilege~~ luxury of not caring, but hardly everybody does. Even a totalitarian dictatorship can be comfortable to the person at the top.

No, though. Somebody doesn't make a video to tell you that they don't care. They make a video to convince you not to care too.

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/cxpmACPA1s4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.