but there's fuck all regulation about how well it might be targeted, there's only regulation around how data can be collected that might be used for that targeting.
Those are two distinct and separate things. 'Perfect targeting' is nothing illegal, and is the ultimate aim of all advertising (after all, which advertiser wants some of their advertising to miss its target?).
Forget about how the data has been acquired for a moment, and just think about the advertising. Someone has done (or at least claims to have done) 'perfect advertising' - and people are going "that shouldn't be allowed".
It ultimately means that people don't have a problem with advertising unless they think it's influencing them - which means people don't accept the very purpose of advertising as a reasonable activity of life.
There's a whole thing here, which - if done logically, reasonably, and in a joined-up way - can *ONLY* mean that *all* advertising (in the way it's done today) should be banned.
(that's not what will happen, of course. The narrative is all about "CA are bad" and fuck all about following thru on what they're doing as the end point, which is 'perfect advertising' [from the advertisers point of view])
Do you think Proctor and Gamble spend billions a year on advertising while *wanting* huge numbers of the people exposed to it unaffected by it? :lol:
If P&G could do the same 'perfect advertising' as CA claim to have done, they'd be doing it - and your mind would not be your own.
The issue is about the 'mind-altering'. People have just woken up to the fact that minds are being altered by advertising.
It's fuck all about the data used to do it.
After all, if CA had acquired that data without it being useful for advertising (or anything else), why would anyone care?? It would just be a useless jumble of numbers.
The issue is *NOT* the data (tho the advertising industry *needs* you to believe that it is). The issue is the 'mind altering' that's able to be done with that data.
PMSL - try sitting in a newsroom for a day and see what comes in and what output gets made of it.
Most of the "news" is advertising. There's fuck all new about that part with what CA have done.
Firstly you need to realise what it is CA have done (or at least, claimed to): they've altered minds.
They've made people do things different to what they'd otherwise have done.
(which is the *sole* purpose of *all* advertising).
'safe' would be having no influence over people's decisions, but instead merely laying information before them (as part of a pile of different information) from which a decision is made.
There's a whole part within economics about this, about how 'true' advertising is product-information-only, with no imaging around the product.
(imaging: "buy this iphone, and be an individual. Having one of a billion iphones shows that you're different to everyone else" )
You haven't understood a single word of what I've said.
I'm defending nothing at all.
I'm pointing out what the *real* issue is here - which is actually fuck all to do with the data CA have got hold of.
But the advertising industry needs you to believe that it is, because otherwise they're fucked.
So guess what the advertising industry is selling you today? It's selling you "CA are baaaad"
Because that stops the short thinkers from realising that the *real* truth is: "all advertising is bad".