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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anti Commercial-AI license
https://gizmodo.com/these-academics-spent-the-last-year-testing-whether-you-1826961188
this is the most recent one I know of.
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.
Gizmodo? 2018? Yikes.
Interesting enough, in that same article is one from Vice, which backs up what I’ve been stating and assuming.
Anti Commercial-AI license
it’s a summary of a paper posted here: https://recon.meddle.mobi/panoptispy/
do I get to say “Vice? 2018? Yikes.” now?
feel free to link more up-to-date research results.
Thanks for the link. Checking the bottom of it …
… and from the paper …
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.
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.
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