Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 04:57:04 JST Lauren Weinstein

   I just love it when people get all bent out of shape about smart TV data collection when the U.S. president is on the verge of stealing an election and disenfranchising millions of voters, attempting to imprison his political adversaries, and literally tearing down the White House -- and much else deeply evil. Techies in general are among the worst class I know when it comes to estimating relative risks. It's always been this way.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 04:57:02 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     @lauren Uhh, like they're the same people. Technofascists are behind both of these things. Adtech industry taking over media is how we got where we are with fascism and spying on everyone with these stupid TVs is part of how they plan to keep the fascism train going.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 05:30:56 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     @lauren Uh, this is not about ads or what you're watching anymore, that's just how the industry grew. The new shit has always-on microphones and is consuming any and every conversation it can, under the excuse of "AI training" but the real value is doing fascism.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 05:30:59 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     @dalias They don't need to bother with such trivialities. At least not these days. They go right to the government databases, they're not worrying about your ads. Really. There's so much noise in that consumer data as to render it basically a waste of time. They're going straight to cutting off medical insurance and social security and arresting innocent people, not worrying about which scam ads are surfacing for you or how many episodes of "Red Dwarf" you're watching.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 05:48:54 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     @lauren I don't have a link handy, but I'm pretty sure that was in the findings on the latest LG TV stuff.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 05:48:55 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     @dalias The smart TVs are not doing this. They are not feeding all the ambient audio anywhere. On the other hand, the new Apple watches represent genuine privacy nightmares, as I will be discussing on my weekly national radio segment on Monday.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 05:56:18 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @BobLefridge @lauren And moreover they can do this even if you don't give them access to your own wifi network, because they have partnerships with big ISPs to piggyback on other people's ISP-provided routers just like the ISP's customers can do.

   • Embed this notice
     Bob LeFridge :tinoflag: (boblefridge@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 05:56:21 JST Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     It's worth checking out the recent exposé on LG TVs which showed they are doing exactly that. Recording all voices in the living room, flicking the data back to base and using keywords to send you related marketing crap. This happens even when the TV is in standby mode.

     @lauren @dalias

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 06:03:15 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     @lauren Why would it be "ridiculous" for them to lie? They know they enjoy impunity as long as what they're doing is aligned with the ruling class's interests. We all know the "wake words" thing is a lie. Every system built on "wake words" has been found to have tons of "spurious wakes". Recordings that never should have happened have been found in the hands of these companies.

     The "every single device we have could be doing it too" excuse does not hold up or make it ok. Most of these devices do not have bypasses for you not giving them network access, and in the case of phones, they supposedly do not allow microphone to be enabled without UI indication that is is, and permission for the app doing it.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 06:03:17 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     @dalias There's data on the TV, but it's not all going anywhere. Standard practice for voice activation devices looking for wake words locally. I read LG's statement and their practices look completely normal -- it would be ridiculous for them to lie. All the "well, they COULD do this or they COULD do that" arguments I care not about, I care about what they are actually doing, because pretty much every single damned device we have these days COULD do all sorts of nasty things, theoretically.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 06:10:42 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @lauren @BobLefridge Why would you want to turn on a TV with your voice? And why would this all happen when you've disabled that misfeature?

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 06:10:43 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @BobLefridge @dalias That's how they're supposed to work. It's how Google Home and Alexa work, and Siri.They constantly listen locally and start sending data upstream when they detect the wake word. Only if all the data were going upstream in the absence of a wake word would this be notable. How could you turn on a TV with your voice if it wasn't waiting for the wake word while in standby?

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 06:11:13 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @lauren @BobLefridge I hope you realize how hurtful that is to someone who has been RIGHT ABOUT THIS SHIT for 25 fucking years. "Oh yeah you're just paranoid." Fuck that.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 06:11:14 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @dalias @BobLefridge "Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep." The government LOVES that people are being diverted by this nonsense. Playing into their hands.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:19 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @BobLefridge @lauren This. There are levels to this stuff and "massive LLM training data holds transcription of everything I've said" is a much different and greater threat (e.g. use in actually threatening people and suppressing any kind of dissent) than "ISP knows I'm accessing the internet" (duh) or even "common places I drive to".

     But on top of that, "all phones pass location data" is just blatently false. Cell towers know rough location from radio communication with them. Other than that, unless you have location services enabled, no, location data is not necessarily being sent somewhere. Googled and vendor-malwared Android devices are more likely to be spying on location without some hard work to disable that, but de-Googled and iOS are not unless you have them configured to.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:20 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @BobLefridge @dalias Well, you must have an ISP, otherwise, you wouldn't be here. All mobile phones pass location data even without GNSS, and triangulation has gotten quite precise. Running your own mail servers (I do too, even longer than you) has become an exercise in madness (due to spam, phishes, delivery restrictions, etc.) that I would not recommend to anyone today. But really, this is all pretty much around the edges. When "they" want you, they will find you.

   • Embed this notice
     Bob LeFridge :tinoflag: (boblefridge@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:20 JST Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     I don't doubt that but as far as I know, "they" aren't looking for me. I'm just officially old and keeping a low digital profile wherever possible. Triangulation isn't a problem because I don't even have a dumb phone. Just a landline. I'm old school.

     As a bonus, I never see any ads, anywhere. ;-)

     @lauren @dalias

   • Embed this notice
     Bob LeFridge :tinoflag: (boblefridge@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:21 JST Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     You forgot Meta's pervert glasses.

     When I said I have no smart devices, that includes smartphones. I refuse to live with an 'always on' microphone.

     Maybe I'm deluded, but I feel like I've removed myself from most of the tracking and surveillance which infests modern life. It helps that I live on a bushy lot near a beach with a soundtrack of birdcall and the endless music of the ocean.

     For the record, I don't subscribe to any online services or store anything in the cloud. I've run my own mailserver since 1995 and I don't wear a watch.

     But what I'd really like is a Faraday cage which fits over my entire house. ;-)

     @lauren @dalias

   • Embed this notice
     Bob LeFridge :tinoflag: (boblefridge@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:22 JST Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     I take your point that there are much bigger issues to deal with, especially for Americans. But denying the intrusiveness of smart TVs seems pointless when it's all part of the great techbro takeover of our privacy.

     @lauren @dalias

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:22 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @BobLefridge @dalias To the extent the local actions of a smart TV are still considered "intrusive" it is drop in the bucket and a diversion from the serious issues. Like your PHONE. Like your VOTER REGISTRATION. The Smart TV thing comes in waves, every few years. Again, unless they are sending ambient data to servers inappropriately, I consider this relatively de minimis, especially since all related features can be disabled. By law. Try using your phone without revealing your location. Good luck.And the new Apple watches are genuinely privacy invasive, likely in an illegal way in many areas. But more on that to come.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:24 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @BobLefridge @dalias I've seen it. And I stand by everything I've said. Stop drinking the damned Kool-Aid. I'm out of this thread now. Enjoy your TV paranoia, while the government builds a fascist nightmare around you and laughs at how easily you've been diverted from the real issues. So very sad.

   • Embed this notice
     Bob LeFridge :tinoflag: (boblefridge@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 13-Sep-2026 08:42:26 JST Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     For reference, here's the (2 hour) video from Gamers Nexus. Over 5m views in 5 days.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IFVTcM28KA

     @dalias @lauren

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:10:25 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lauren @lispi314 The data streaming services have is what account watched what content at what time from what IP address. That's all they have access to unless a malicious device (like the TVs in question) gives them more (like microphone access, access to information on other things you watched outside of their service, nearby wifi APs & location data, etc.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:10:27 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @lispi314 @dalias The data collection you can't escape (assuming you use any streaming services) is that collected by the streaming firms themselves, which of course they get even from dongles connected to HDMI ports. Much of that is now aggregated. The actual value is a different question entirely though.

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:10:28 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     @lauren @dalias What exactly do you think feeds those databases? Where do they get the profiling datapoints?
   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:11:31 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @lauren @BobLefridge Good luck triangulating folks who have 1-2 bars from a single in-range tower... 🙃

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:11:34 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Bob LeFridge :tinoflag:

     @dalias @BobLefridge Oh, cell tower triangulation is now extremely accurate. Nothing like the old days. Yeah, it's not GNSS accurate, but with the rise of microcells and 4G/5G made a big difference and law enforcement is thrilled with it and uses it constantly even when GNSS is not available.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:49:55 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lispi314 @lauren Exactly. The narrative that Google "doesn't sell user data" is pretty much "true on a technicality that doesn't actually matter".

     The people who insist on simping for Google at every opportunity and belittling anyone who doesn't explicitly clarify this technicality are so tiring.

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:49:57 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     @lauren @dalias Given that one can just buy ad targeting from Google, there's no need to buy the user data directly.
     
     Just pay them to target the set you're interested in and record the matches.
     
     Then with other vendors, deanonymize said matches.
     
     This allows Google to look "cleaner" while functionally doing nothing to prevent mass surveillance with their aid.
   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:49:58 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @lispi314 @dalias It depends wholly on the operational model. Google for example has never sold user data, though the false claim that they have has persisted pretty much forever.

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 02:49:59 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker

     @lauren @dalias It's not just streaming though.

     Practically everything has ads, on purpose. And then there's the sale of user data on top of that for those who block ads.

     The entire aggregated mass of commercial mass surveillance (the term surveillance capitalism is apropos) is then just bought for a token sum, as if it were any other buyer.

     (This has been reported on and can be counted on as a fact. We're not even reaching very-likely federal agency shenanigans.)

     Given how fairly often that includes a lot of PII and even what should be protected medical information, it can be quite enough to target someone off it.

     Especially if, as most fascistic regimes, one doesn't actually care all that much about false positives.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:06:17 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lauren @lispi314 I see folks talking about data brokers as a very severe threat all the time.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:06:18 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias @lispi314 I've seen how this works internally at Google. It is not selling user data. There are of course entities that do DIRECTLY sell data on individuals, of the most private kind -- like data brokers. But somehow they're never talked about, even though they deal explicitly with the most sensitive of PII! People in general are awful at prioritizing risks!

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:07:44 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lauren @lispi314 Then maybe it would be more beneficial to spend one's time educating folks about data brokers instead of defending Google. 🤔

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:07:45 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias @lispi314 Compared to people ragging on this aspect of Google it's a drop in the bucket.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:29:16 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lauren @lispi314 Google was deep in the pit of fascism a decade ago.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:29:17 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias @lispi314 I push for reality. And I discuss both. But while Google is rapidly falling into the pit of fascism, I will continue to correct what I view as erroneous assertions where I have specific knowledge to the contrary.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:52:23 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lauren @lispi314 Eric Schmidt invited fucking Henry Kissinger to Google and even "co-authored" a book with him.

     Google was deeply fascist long before Sundar.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 03:52:24 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias @lispi314 Not really before Sundar took over, but certainly accelerating under his partnership with Trump.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 04:04:39 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • LisPi

     @lauren @lispi314 Henry Kissinger was probably the most evil person of the 20th century political scene, architect of incalculable death and suffering to create the world order he wanted.

     Declaring him "a very complex person" and wanting to be in his presence (except like as an assassin) is so deep in the fascist brainrot I don't even know what to say.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 04:04:40 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias @lispi314 Kissinger is a very complex person. I would have attended a talk by him if I could have. I'm fascinated by good and evil and especially mixes thereof, which is what humans always are. He was a classic example of promoting horrifically evil means to ends that were countering even greater evils, which of course was the foundation of MAD, which also of course was used as justification for the horrendous waste of Vietnam. MAD was utterly insane, but 20/20 hindsight is always, well, 20/20. When I was at RAND I had some chats with folks there who had some fascinating insights, however chilling those insights often were.

   • Embed this notice
     Lauren Weinstein (lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 04:26:47 JST Lauren Weinstein

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias @lispi314 I would have liked to have lunch with Nixon, or Stalin, or even Hitler. Or Vlad for that matter. And all the wonderful personages as well. That's not endorsing any of them, it's trying to understand humanity as free from propaganda as possible, especially since history is always written by the victors.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:01 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Peter Ludemann
     • LisPi

     @PeterLudemann @lispi314 @lauren "If Google can make money from targeted advertising, that is a Good Thing --"

     Thank you for telling me I should block you.

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Ludemann (peterludemann@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:03 JST Peter Ludemann

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @lispi314
     > > In other words, you have no idea how difficult it is to block spam, either incoming or outgoing.
     > That is logically inconsistent with the notion that I had to personally handle how much I received.

     You've made my point -- spam is non-"trivial" (to use your word) to stop and plenty got through to you. Gmail et al can do spam detection at scale that's almost impossible for individual mail servers (e.g., detecting bursts of similar messages).

     Anyway, if spam weren't effective, we wouldn't see half of email traffic being spam. Only a tiny fraction needs to reach a susceptible target to make it pay off.

     If Google can make money from targeted advertising, that is a Good Thing -- I'm looking for some goods or services and a company wants to provide me that goods or service. It's not surveillance, any more than it's surveillance if Visa sends me a (paper) advertisement for Japan Airlines because I've bought a ticket to Tokyo from United Airlines (something that United Airlines knows, Visa can perhaps infer, and JAL doesn't know but wants to target with its advertising -- this is also a Good Thing because JAL economy has more legroom than United economy, and if I didn't know that, I would be paying more for an inferior service).

     Good-bye

     @dalias @lauren

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:05 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Peter Ludemann

     @PeterLudemann @dalias @lauren

     In other words, you have no idea how difficult it is to block spam, either incoming or outgoing.

     That is logically inconsistent with the notion that I had to personally handle how much I received.

     Enough gets blocked that it is nontrivial to get through lastingly

     Have you any idea of the volume of spam that major providers such as Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo receive and mostly block?

     I thought not.

     That is irrelevant to the point of view of a company considering ads vs spamming in hopes of sales. The odds of it being blocked or requiring constant labor & costs to avoid it get worse the better adversaries are at blocking.

     That others don't get blocked or evaded a block doesn't matter. What matters is purely themselves.

     It doesn't make sense to even consider the costs of spamming when ad networks are around.

     Of course this is besides the fact that socially, products advertised by spam are typically expected to be scams (much like products that are too aggressively advertised). So spamming is quite possibly actively detrimental.

     So getting enough marks that buy into spam to actively provide a signal back with identifiable information that makes it back to the original master for surveillance purposes? That kind of operation with physical mail would have the kind of costs and inefficiency that would make many parties give up on the notion entirely.

     With email just opening it for checking would possibly provide a signal, but it is common now for "Unknown senders" to have most automatic signal-sending methods disabled in Email clients & web clients. So one is back to needing some level of victim buy-in/cooperation.

     If this is true, then why is there so much spam? (See above - most of it gets blocked ... at one point ~90% of email traffic was spam but nowadays I think it's ~50%)

     People are idiots. But also a lot spammers truly are scams and have the same lack of qualms as scammers usually display.

     That is then not for surveillance, but because one mark out of thousands or millions that buys it and gets taken for all they're worth can more than offset the cost of getting to them, even with limited information value/observation (not necessarily true since exploiting someone this way can also involve stealing their ID for resale) and a lack of expectation of repeat business.

     It is an entirely different business model.

     What is your definition of "surveillance"? Showing adverts based on search queries is hardly "surveillance".

     Deliberate information and data gathering or processing for purposes which intentionally lend themselves to things resembling intelligence work, whether on a personalized or mass scale, for any purpose.

     That would be a workable definition.

     Incidental or accidental mass gathering & processing of the same is something that can be called negligence.

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Ludemann (peterludemann@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:06 JST Peter Ludemann

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @lispi314
     >> Only someone who hase never worked on anti-spam software would say that.
     > I have, though most of my experience with them is as a user/administrator, not a programmer.
     In other words, you have no idea how difficult it is to block spam, either incoming or outgoing.
     > Enough gets blocked that it is nontrivial to get through lastingly
     Have you any idea of the volume of spam that major providers such as Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo receive and mostly block?
     I thought not.

     > Mail spam is an expense with an uncertain return.
     If this is true, then why is there so much spam? (See above - most of it gets blocked ... at one point ~90% of email traffic was spam but nowadays I think it's ~50%)

     > Surveillance capitalism through ads is a guaranteed return
     What is your definition of "surveillance"? Showing adverts based on search queries is hardly "surveillance".
     @dalias @lauren

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:07 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Peter Ludemann

     @PeterLudemann @dalias @lauren

     Only someone who hase never worked on anti-spam software would say that.

     I have, though most of my experience with them is as a user/administrator, not a programmer.

     Enough gets blocked that it is nontrivial to get through lastingly (LLM have made this worse), which means that it is very much not worth spending the labor & time (both of these cost money, even if the workers are slaves) making it so, instead of using a deliberately cooperative network that accomplishes the same purpose better.

     Mail spam is an expense with an uncertain return.

     Surveillance capitalism through ads is a guaranteed return and an additional possible return. For an end-user company that sells the user data they get and hopes to get a use sale too, the surveillance return may not be more than a minor mitigation to the cost of running the ads, though, but it is still considerably cheaper than the firehose approach.

     I suppose next you'll be castigating Google because some of its Cloud customers send spam.

     The effective impossibility to contact a human at Google in anything resembling a timely fashion without the use of a lawyer contributes a lot, alongside reports being widely ignored.

     You can shove that flame, consequently.

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Ludemann (peterludemann@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:08 JST Peter Ludemann

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @lispi314
     "Emails get blocked as spam trivially."
     Only someone who hase never worked on anti-spam software would say that.

     "many spam operators operate off gmail's own servers"
     Outgoing spam detection is also non-trivial.

     I suppose next you'll be castigating Google because some of its Cloud customers send spam.

     <flame-on>
     Don't make mountains out of mole hills. Concentrate on the real problems.
     (And don't make blanket statements about things you don't understand, such as anti-spam)
     </flame-off>

     @dalias @lauren

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:10 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Peter Ludemann

     @PeterLudemann @dalias @lauren Emails get blocked as spam trivially.

     Ads often don't get blocked and ad targeting helps establish a probabilistic match for the specific filter you set on the ad campaign.

     Yes, you do need Google or some other targeting ad network for maximal effect.

     Firehose HTML+JavaScript email is considerably less useful (and pixel-size remote resource images were the common way to leak viewing status & some request data instead of JavaScript in HTML emails anyway).

     but I suppose you'd see that as Google trying to stop a competitor

     It is. Especially when considered in conjunction with how many spam operators operate off gmail's own servers that see little to no enforcement against them even when actively reported by humans.

   • Embed this notice
     Peter Ludemann (peterludemann@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:11 JST Peter Ludemann

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @lispi314
     You don't need Google to send out lots of emails that "execute arbitrary coode or send information back to its masters". And it's much cheaper than using the Post Office. (Google's quite good at detecting such email and either blocking it or putting it in "Spam" filter, but I suppose you'd see that as Google trying to stop a competitor.)
     @dalias @lauren

   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:12 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Peter Ludemann
     @PeterLudemann @dalias @lauren You'll note that physical mail, at the time, was not capable of executing arbitrary code or sending information back to its masters.
     
     (Even if ad networks audited the JavaScript payload, and they mostly don't, the information needed for deanonymization is the same as the information needed to mitigate "click fraud" and "impression fraud" so they wouldn't block it anyway.)
     
     That made it a lot less suitable for mass surveillance.
     
     It was still doable to some extent (manipulating users to use rebates, coupons, call numbers, etc to track matches), but it was a lot less effective.
     
     As a result, one can state "Google doesn't sell user data" and "Google sells a mass surveillance service that uses user data" without contradiction. The end-result is that if you have enough money, they effectively did sell you the data. Just with a post-processing requirement & fee.
   • Embed this notice
     Peter Ludemann (peterludemann@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Monday, 14-Sep-2026 23:22:13 JST Peter Ludemann

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • LisPi

     @dalias
     It's not a "technicality that doesn't actually matter".
     First Data (a company you've likely never heard of -- they provide merchant and bank services for credit cards, so they get to see lots and lots of money transactions) was at one time one of the largest users of the US Post Office ... businesses would go to First Data and pay them to mail advertising to, say, everyone who had spent more than $100 in the past 2 months at Mountain Hardwear, and First Data would do that ... this is very different from First Data giving a business a list of everyone who had spent more than $100 in the past 2 months at Mountain Hardwear. (If you can't work out the difference yourself, I can help you)
     Similarly, Google doesn't sell user data.
     @lispi314 @lauren