You’re exactly right on both counts. When you hear it from politicians, the sound bite (byte?) is “to protect the children” which is ambiguous. I take it to mean to protect the data of my children, somebody else takes it to mean to protect my children from being brainwashed and the children running the social media companies take it to mean it’s protecting their right to wealth. It’s win win win!

If the US govn’t were serious about protecting people, they’d implement GDPR and put data privacy into the hands of the individual.

One thing I forgot to add to this was a different article by the same author: https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/

Referencing a book, the article lays out the corporate BS playbook for pushing back on changes. In the anti monopoly ad space, they’re currently running play 1: there is no problem, people want targeted ads.

I feel like the whole advertising machine needs to be reimagined. I’m not opposed to learning about new and better products, but I’ve been conditioned to immediately distrust anything coming to me in the form of an ad. Pair this with the mindset of advertisers that they can’t do their job without stalking every individual and it’s a recipe for a global-level human rights violation.

that could be, but reading between the lines, it seems that the judges have just been brainwashed to think like the media companies want. The article mentions “users WANT targeted ads” and yet when given the option, 90% of FB users shut off targeting.

I like the Van Halen brown M&M version. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-did-van-halen-demand-concert-venues-remove-brown-mms-from-the-menu-180982570/

I don’t know the legal side, but employers don’t want you to talk about your compensation with anyone. Maybe it’s legal, but definitely frowned upon.

Consider what would happen if employees across the globe posted to an open database about their employer, position title, salary bonus and health care information. I’m sure we’d all be sued. How is this legal?

Jeff? Is that you, son? I told you that it was nonnegotiable, now get off the internets, I’m expecting an important telephone call and don’t want you tying up the lines.

While there are a lot of good technical suggestions here, I’ve found that a conversation goes a long way. In my experience, when talking with loved ones, explain your emotions. Not “I hate this” or “the governments are listening!”, but those core emotions. “Having a device in my room that is always monitoring me makes me feel anxious and I don’t feel comfortable in a place where I should feel safe.” Make sure that the dialog is calm and remains about your feelings until you know that you’re being heard. If you aren’t, try other phrases or examples.

Once you’ve established your feelings, address their concerns and feelings (active listening). It sounds stupid at first, but it works. “I hear that you are frustrated when I don’t come down for dinner immediately.” Finally, propose some solutions that meet everybody’s needs and that the parties can select one to try out for a week and evaluate it’s effectiveness, trying new things until a mutually beneficial solution is found.

Good luck. Please post the outcome!

Thank you for a thoughtful post with citations and quotes. After reading the whole page by Mozilla, it seems like they’re taking steps to show advertisers how they can get what they want while preserving people’s privacy. I can live with that. They’re trying to build a win-win scenario.

I’ll still block ads. I’ll still reject cookies, but I feel like it’s a reasonable feature THAT I CAN SHUT OFF. I’m still in control of my browser! Great!

Look at the strangler pattern in microswrvice architecture. Applying this to your scenario, set up a front end to YouTube, cache the results locally (probably host in a place that allows it). Also host videos from other platforms like peertube. Once you have a lot of users, slowly prioritize “free” videos over YT content.

It’s not likely to happen, but it’s the pattern that FB uses to present news. First they showed a link to the story and you’d click through, then they required more of the story, then when all were hooked, they demanded the whole story to be displayed, effectively stealing all the users and the ability to advertise.