It's funny how every neckbeard on this site claims that companies like google...

Users don't, investors do.

We know exactly how it works though. All you have to do is buy a single $5 ad on goog/fb to know how this functions.

>Servers don't pay for themselves.
Who cares? I honestly hope they go out of business anyway.

>What else are you supposed to do? Guess?
In the case of machine-learning-based ad targeting which is what the big guys are doing now, it actually *is* quite literally guessing.

>Google, like other companies, cares A LOT about their reputation
Which is already in the toilet from years of bad practices and failed product launches.

Stop shilling for stuff you don't even understand OP.

>muuhhh big companies bad
>thinking that paying 5$ to google or facebook will let you track individual people
it won't

>machine-learning-based ad targeting is guessing
imagine being this retardet
machine-learning RELIES on huge databases of learning data

go away mark

>it won't
I never said it would

>machine-learning RELIES on huge databases of learning data
Yes, in an attempt to improve the quality of their guessing, not to remove the need for guessing entirely.

I don't believe in guessing, I believe in getting it right the first time, which is why I don't support spying botnet companies.

ok there trippy trips
if you dont even understand why ML is guessing why are you even on Jow Forums? Let me break it down for you.

If you have proven that an analytical solution exists but you cannot construct it for various reasons, what you are doing is approximating, IF you can also prove that your approximations can be arbitrarily good.

If you have not proven that an analytical solution exists, but you have real world data and a model for that real world data, then it is either an analytical solution for the model, which at best is an approximation for real world data given that you can prove your model approximates real world data arbitrarily good, or you have approximations for the model (like how trying to solve newtons gravity for two bodies doesnt have a closed form solution, but numerical methods exist). If you cannot prove that your model approximates real world data arbitrarily good, then what you are doing is guessing.

Jow Forums is generally a low value place where few people know what they're talking about. Most people are stupid enough to believe Google sells your data.

>t. unpaid google intern

>Google sells your data
Do people on Jow Forums really believe this?

Yeah, I'm sure Google spends billions of dollars profiling and building massive dossiers on people so they can give away their comparative advantage away for pennies on the dollar.

Attached: 1459658201.png (394x450, 17K)

Post benis

No, it's just obvious to anyone with business sense why your idea is retarded. Why would Google sell your data?

He's right kind of. A neural network is a universal function approximator, the function in this case being "Does X want to see this ad?". A massive dataset makes the approximation better, but you'd need infinite data to get a perfect result.

because it makes them profit
i don't care about google's profit so i won't give them my data for free
it's just simple math user

>because it makes them profit
No, it wouldn't. Google spends a great amount of money and time collecting data about you in the hopes of building an increasingly profitable advertiser's profile of you. Selling your data rather than keeping it would be selling at a loss.

You think Google would make more profit on selling your data rather than selling targeted advertising?

I feel uncomfortable about a powerful multinational company having more data on me than the soviet apparatus could have possibly had on its citizens.

Oh no doubt, I despise Google and the amount of power and information they have

But to say "they sell your data" is a fundamental misunderstanding of their business model.

They are powerful because they keep the data to themselves and build tools that monetize the data in aggregate. They don't sell it. That would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

But data brokering exist and it's a huge market. Maybe with smaller scale participants but big in numbers.

i won't give them an advertiser's profile for free either, if they want that they have to pay
what you don't understand is that i don't care about the exact mechanism for which they extract profit from the data

That has nothing to do with any of my post.

>what you don't understand is that i don't care about the exact mechanism for which they extract profit from the data
So your opinion is literally white noise and nothing you say is really interesting on a technology board.

There are small companies whose sole purpose is mining data and selling it. Google isn't one of them - they sell advertisements that target you using the data Google has gathered.

shilling for google doesn't make you interesting

no, actually that's not true. Marketing just work with desire and desire is inherent inside people's mind. You will have to take out the desire from the people and then marketing will be gone.

Good luck with that.

>collecting atleast some basic userdata like average session duration, which interface elements are clicked the most, which sites are visited the most etc. is essential these days. As a company you obviously need to know how users interact with your site. What else are you supposed to do? Guess?

I didn't know that tracking your search history, browsing history, location (with a huge precision) and having the ability to read through your e-mails is basic data.

Oh and I'm not even talking about the nsa docs which proved the government USES this data. Is it ethic?

Why to insist on companies that spies on you while you have other alternatives?

E-mail:Protonmail or Tutanota
Social Networks: Pleroma, Mastodon and Pixelfed
Youtube:Peertube
Browser:Firefox
OS:Debian, Arch Linux, Ubuntu...
Chatting:Riot (or a Matrix based app)

Why to chose the worse of the internet? The alternative exists and is open source

Attached: Prism1.jpg (700x525, 200K)

You're literally too stupid to understand nuance I see.

Being aware of the basics of how adtech works doesn't mean that I like adtech. Just means I care about the details and precision in language, unlike you.

Attached: Prism3.jpg (700x525, 186K)

That's not selling data. Move goalposts harder.

>it's not bad if you do it for free instead of selling it

why should i care? i don't work for google or facebook or any other adtech companies so i have no reason to give a fuck about the details, despite that i probably know more about them than you mr shill

Attached: Prism9.jpg (1322x934, 119K)

Whoa, come on now. We all know the government takes our data and pays for it by giving us """democracy""" in return.

Alternatives are not always replacements, especially when it comes to social networks/YouTube where it’s the content and people greatly overshadow where it’s hosted

Nonono, user. They don't sell data to the CIA, they mirror it there for free.

Good thing I use an ad blocker, huh?

I agree with you that replacing our current services like Youtube is still pretty hard. By the way, this doesn't stops you from willing a try on it and starting the change.

Gradually, with some effort, we could replace our actual services on internet.

Why are you even on the technology board if you're proud of being unaware how technology works?

off yourself paid shill

>i don't know any of the details, that's why opinion matters more than someone who does!
When did Jow Forums become so accepting of 105s who are literally proud of being incurious retards?

>implying i don't know exactly how it works and still don't give a fuck

You couldn't explain pagerank if I gave spoonfed you the algorithm.

Marketing manufacturers and manipulates desires. It is a form of propaganda.

you cannot create desire. You can only guide it or amplify it.

It shouldn't be. Muh freedumbz are more important

that has nothing to do with any of this thread, fuck off shill

I could reduce a full preference profile of you if I had your name and phone number.

They collect every action you take on their site, you are a fool.

choa

I wonder what she smells like

Brainlet

You can certainly create desire.

no man. The guy craving for games has the desire, you cannot create that craving for videogames to someone who doesn't give a fuck about videogames. That's the reason you have to find you target market and amplify that desire.

You cannot create it, that's another misconception like saying successful marketing must lie to get potential clients.

i want to nakadashi ChoA

If you cannot create a craving for something, video games would have never gotten an audience in the first place, since there would have been no one craving something that didn't exist before the Brown Box.

If it can't be manufactured, smart speakers would have never sold. They literally had to create problems for it to solve for it to make any sense.

>You cannot create it
Edward Bernays and his torches of freedom disagree with you

like I said, you cannot create it. The person must have the desire and the will to explore. Marketing doesn't do that, it grabs people with a little bit of desire (more is best) and then it is use for the product or service that will satisfy that desire.

You cannot make a person who isn't thirsty to drink. It doesn't work like that.

well, I will have to disagree with him. You see, there is a lot of approaches and theories about marketing. If you are really interesting, read about copywrinting, the Boron Letters or Scientific advertising.

>Brainlet
i won't argue that but pagerank is also brainlet, get a real job shill

keklo come back

>You cannot make a person who isn't thirsty to drink
Theatres figured this out over a century ago. Just make them thirsty. Soda and beer manufacturers figured this out to, since those products are diuretics.

Conditioning is a thing. If they don't have the desire you want, make them have it.

is this real deer

In general advertising is a net negative: the advertiser pays money for your attention but only because it will net them a bigger return in profit. And that profit comes from diverting you from buying what is best for you, to buying what they are selling. However:

1. Advertising and marketing are unavoidable. Unless it's illegal, companies will do it.

2. A better way to pay for internet services would be subscription or some kind of micropayments. But human psychology and payment processing aren't up to that yet, so we are stuck with ads as an indirect way to pay for websites. Like OP said, there needs to be same way for websites to pay for themselves. And on the other hand no one would visit a website with ads unless the website provided them with some value.

So ads are effectively an inefficient kind of micropayment, where you are willingly manipulated into making a purchasing decision as payment for viewing a website.

What exactly is this post adding to the discussion?

Good question.

>he thinks this is about ads and not human behavior mapping and population control

Attached: DGoXxmfUIAEEnw_.jpg (1368x2048, 220K)

>1. Advertising and marketing are unavoidable. Unless it's illegal, companies will do it.
The solution is right in front of you.