I personally prefer having personalised ads over vanilla ones. Especially if the data is not sold but merely used to improve ads.
If possible I try to pay where possible to not have ads in the first place.
You can be targeted without explicitly selling data to a third party. This is how most large advertising networks work. They don't send a dump of all user data to a third party who wants to advertise.
I do admit that this is a valid viewpoint. But also, the problem is that the choice is between “the data is collected” and “the data is not collected,” and ads being relevant is just a proxy for that. Even if a company was actually responsible with data and had a proven track record in data security, it just seems like unnecessary risk for something that is not very important to the end user.
I’ve learned to love more direct advertising. Granted, I will admit that NordVPN and Raycon may not provide the best or even in some cases most honest products, but the model they are using to advertise, by having reputable creators appeal to their viewers in enjoyable ways (see, for example, the way Internet Historian uses his signature video editing style and makes the whole ordeal of an advertisement into an over-the-top joke; people end up looking forward to these ad reads) is pretty solid, and it might have more room for growth with creators seeking more direct monetization with both their fans and sponsors alike.
Compared to that, even the most relevant ads generated by some algorithm will always feel impersonal. It’s a giant machine to me.
You can be targeted without explicitly selling data to a third party. This is how most large advertising networks work. They don't send a dump of all user data to a third party who wants to advertise.
They don't have to dump the data, your request for the ad is itself data that allows more targeting by that network. Part of your identity is sold by default the moment you content to the linked ad network.
That request is made to the ad platform (e.g. Google/FB/Amzn) and not the 3th party who owns the ad. Even when following the link the website does not get any personal information it does not already get by you visiting their website.
You mentioned data originally, not personal information. You do give the 3rd party data about your current visit which is connected with all the information they already have about you - which builds up your profile. But the difference is not that big - for example did you visit page for the local school with a facebook button? Yeah, facebook already knows which area you likely live in.
Advertisers have proven time and time again they're not trustworthy.
And any website that says "your privacy is important to us" while deliberately tricking you into accepting terms and cookies you weren't easily made aware of is a hostile adversary.
I've said before, I'd be happy to see ads that were embedded in the website's content, unchanging and baked in on the day the page was written (like print publications) as there would be no need to track and stalk me, profile me and sell my behaviour to dodgy companies around the world who are making money from me without my consent.
Do that and I'll turn my ad blocker off. Until then, let's bring on the gdpr lawsuits.
I'd like some evidence with all these conspiracy theories.
Recent battles between news corps and silicon valley have shown they are on opposite sides if anything. There is no shortage of negative press regarding silicon valley.
Facebook and Twitter have already shown they're willing to suppress the distribution of news that doesn't fit their political agenda, as we saw with the Hunter Biden story. It's not really a "conspiracy theory" when they're doing it in the open in full view of everybody.
The whole world isn’t picking up on the Hunter Biden story. There are news outlets and social scenes all over the world.
Tucker Carlson has said that he had critical evidence of crime that would destroy Hunter Biden, but he doesn’t want to release it because he would be kicking an already fallen man. Even Fox has cooled on the story.
Either the story has legs or it doesn’t. Either you like Tucker Carlson and Rudy Giuliani's take on it or you don’t, as they are among the few to assert access to the evidence in question.
I'm curious to the longer term effects of companies that move hybrid setups. It would seem to me (although anecdotically) that in this setup working fully remote might hinder career growth due to visibility and being less involved in new projects and ideas. It's also easier to form a bond with colleagues f2f compared to over a VC.
Working without (socializing all day) is doing your job. (Working without socializing) all day is being a drone. And likely not even doing your job any more effectively.
While I also like the idea of choice for people on either side of the spectrum I feel being remote while part of your team/company is not puts you at a severe disadvantage. Both in the sense of being involved in new projects and ideas and visibility compared to peers.
I'm curious to see how this hybrid approach plays out in the future.
Unsure where you get your quotes but Switzerland beats UK in post tax earnings by quite a margin according to data I found. Note that Switzerland has only a 20-25% effective tax.
If you want decent money (not even NYC or Silicon Valley money which is not possible) you need to move to London at which point even 80-100k pounds (usually terminal salary for software engineers) does not give you the same savings rate or quality of life you'd get elsewhere.
The same problem can be highlighted for many expensive places in europe which is why there is such a brain drain for top talent.
You can get significantly more than 100k in London. And even at that price, life would be quite comfortable (but of course COL is still significantly higher than many other places).
Life can be comfortable but it’s not sustainable. You can indeed be comfortable if you spend all that money on rent + lifestyle, but it’s just not enough to actually buy a property in a reasonable amount of time.
A handful of 10x devs earning 100k doesn't address the general skills shortage. In fact I'd say the overemphasis on top-tier talent in the tech sector exacerbates the problem.
Reading the comments it almost seems that folks assume passwords are shared plain text with these trackers. I don't have any issue with Lastpass having anonymized logs of how often people visit which part of the app if it leads to improvements in usability.
From a security standpoint this is kinda the point – we don't know what it's sharing and it has the ability to, so we have to assume it. Obviously it's unlikely, but through accident, ignorance, or malice, it's possible.
I think for a security product the onus is on the author to show that this can't happen (not just that it doesn't), which means either not having trackers (easy) or somehow showing that trackers are isolated from the sensitive data (hard).
This isn't uncommon. Apple have published a bunch about how they do iOS security, and it's quite clear that there's strong sandboxing between untrusted code and sensitive data, in some cases even enforced at the hardware level.
> I don't have any issue with Lastpass having anonymized logs of how often people visit which part of the app if it leads to improvements in usability.
