Filter bubbles on the Internet

Is this really happening? This runs 9 minutes but is very interesting. It explains why I don't get the same thing when someone tells me to look at such and such.

How companies like Facebook, Google, etc., are looking at what you click on and tailoring what you see on the internet. What you see and what I see when we Google something might be entirely different, based on what we have clicked on in the past.
This is really interesting and it's certainly worth the watch...

Filter bubbles on the Internet

 

Yes, thanks that was very interesting. I've been worried about bubble tracking for a while.

You may be interested in this.

 

http://www.DuckDuckGo.com

 

Honestly, I think it's over-blown and it simply doesn't bother me. Granted, I choose to use Bing since I believe MS is less intrusive than Google, but that's just my own hang-up. As for tracking cookies, I use Ghostery. Am I seeing what "they" want me to see so that the news of the day is skewed by my surfing habits? Maybe... maybe not. Again, it doesn't really bother me that much. My wife gets her perspective on things, my sons get theirs and somehow it all gets thrown together to produce an approximation of truth. I doubt we'll ever be rid of these gate-keepers.

 

A little bit of 'gatekeeper' is fine. I like it when they know I speak English for example.

 

Honestly, I think that is a tad naive & bubble tracking bothers me. You only have to check RequestPolicy in conjunction with NoScript to see what trackers follow you around the Net. Bubble tracking isn't for the convenience of the end user, but to make profits for corporations. I don't mind a little bit of harmless tracking, but I think that the information gleaned can eventually be used detrimentally. This isn't just a matter of privacy but of security as well. I use Start page as my homepage & DDG as my default browser (runbar) on SeaMonkey & Firefox/Waterfox. SeaMonkey is pretty easy to make default but Firefox/Waterfox is an 'about:config' job. You need to download the DDG (SSL) plug-in, then type ~ browser.search into the config filter then click on the browser.search.defaultenginename string. Then just replace (type) 'Google' with DuckDuckGo (SSL). If you are interested.

Start Page (Ixquick) is an aggregator & utilises Bing results inter alia anyway. Plus, it doesn't record your IP address. If you really want a graphic illustration of who's following you & you run Firefox/Waterfox, have a gander at Collusion.

There has been some controversy about Ghostery, although in my experience, it doesn't find much less than NoScript. Although I believe that to really fine tune any cross-site scripts you need to use NoScript in conjunction with RequestPolicy.

I disagree, it was only because of people being concerned about IP logging & bubble tracking that engines like DDG, Qrobe.it & Start Page were developed in the first place.

Qrobe.it

 

lol!

 

I try to keep my system secure only to keep out the malicious stuff. I couldn't care less whether companies are seeing where I go or what I buy [I have nothing to hide]. This happens all around us, whether we're shopping at Walmart, Sears, or Ebay. When I get junk mail in USPS mail I throw it in the trash. When I get items in searches I don't want, I ignore them.

My time is more important to me than spending it trying to find ways to thwart the "filter bubble ".

SpywareDr: Thanks for the DuckDuckGo link.

Mitch

 

No problem.

The only reason I care is because I do not want their algorithms limiting what I see. I want to see it all, the good, bad and the ugly. At least allow me to have some control in "personalizing my experience ".

 

My feelings precisely. Thanks for voicing them better than I.

 

It all depends on if your AV & other AM defences recognise the malware GUIDs though doesn't it?

The 'I have nothing to hide' argument is a trifle jejune & essentially lacks cogency in my opinion. It is not particularly apposite to the concept anyway. Bubble tracking was not designed for the advantage of the end user & information gathered can be utilised detrimentally regardless of what you are, or are not, 'hiding'. Furthermore, individually tailored bubbles are not giving you a balanced picture of any possible search potentiality, therefore you are not getting the most unadulterated & honest choices possible. To deny this is missing the point a bit.

Again, this isn't the problem. It is the information gleaned as you are being bubble tracked that can inevitably be used to profile you, or be utilised for any nefarious purpose. Plus, I doubt whether bubbled search results are necessarily better or more accurate than non-bubbled searches.

It's not a matter of spending 'time' trying to 'thwart' the filter bubble. It doesn't take time to use a better/more secure search engine that doesn't log your IP address or to take precautions. Using the same argument you could just as easily state that you don't have time to prevent malware infecting your computer.

If you don't believe me, have a butcher's hook (look) at this page if you didn't see it earlier.

 

Exactly!

 

I understand your concerns about the amount and type of information being collected about you while searching the internet. It seems in today's world people are more privacy conscious and this is due to the actions of some who are too lazy to work for a living and would rather steal from others [identity theft].

Those types of concerns are what fuel innovation and the creation of companies like DuckDuckGo. But remember, they too want to make a profit and do so through advertising. Clicking on an Ad has to collect some information albeit minimal.

It is the individual user's responsibility to protect any information the user doesn't want exposed. There is no expectation of privacy in public and the Internet is considered public.

Forums like this one are important in getting this kind of information out to those who are unaware (I sent a link to this thread to several of my friends).

Even with it's flaws, Capitalism is a good thing. Just think what it would be like if we lived in a Marxist society.

One last privacy issue for thought; when you forward an email (especially those which have be forwarded several times) do you remove all the email addresses contained in the body of the email? I do.

Mitch

 

Or advertisers & others making a profit from my personal information without my knowledge.

I use an adblocker & don't click on anything that I am suspicious of. You are more likely to be infected by a 'drive-by' flash player advert (usually a trojan) than anything else. A good link scanner &/or WOT is useful. I like Dr Web on Waterfox/Firefox. I don't mind DDG or Ixquick making a profit from me, at least they are honest about not bubble tracking me & don't record my IP address.

Again, how can the user protect information that is being data mined surreptitiously? Have a butcher's at IP Secrets. Look at how much information you give to a page when your Javascript is enabled for example. Suddenly NoScript seems like a good idea.

It depends on who is making the profit I suppose. It doesn't seem to be working well at the moment (especially for the poor).

I didn't think that there ever were any real 'Marxist' societies outside of paranoid & delusional extremist viewpoints (unless you count the hypothetical Phalansteres & Icaria of Fourier et al or maybe something along the lines of Aristophanes' Nephelokokkygia) . I think Hitler always believed that imaginary Marxists were plotting against him, which sounds a bit reaction-formative if you ask me. Although, personally, I think that Hitler was a bit yampy (too much Austrian lager I reckon, I know I've drank the lager in Austria, it's quite potent, or it may have been the Tyrolean air), interestingly Hitler regularly claimed that many of his opponents political views were 'Nephelokokkygia'. Totalitarian communist states existed, yes, but Marxism has never even been properly attempted as far as I know. Have you ever actually read any Marx? He wasn't against capitalism, in fact he thought it could be a good idea & possibly work, just as long as the majority benefited from it rather than a small elite minority. Which as far as I know has never ever actually happened in the real world. It seems kind of ironical to me, that the Republic of China's People's Bank is the most stable in the world, & may eventually have to bail out the mess that Western capitalism is in at the moment. So much for capitalistic deregulated fractional reserve banking I say. Although I am digressing here a bit (speaking of reaction-formation, please note that it wasn't me that introduced economic politics onto a security forum), I don't mind services that I utilise regularly making some profit, in fact it is a healthy thing all round, but it just isn't as simple as that. It appears there are those profiting from the dissemination of information most people are oblivious to.

Yes, that's a good idea.

 

Using an adblocker is basically taking a ride for free on someone else's tab. Not good. There are no free rides... none. Someone has to pay for everything. If adblockers become dominant, how long do you think the internet will remain the way it is now? Not very long. Paywalls will soon appear since bills need to be paid. I can understand (to a limited extent) the concerns about third-party cookies (tracking cookies) but blocking all ads (banner ads etc) is not a good thing. Thankfully most do not block ads (few million using adblocker is a miniscule drop in the bucket) or else the internet as we know it would change dramatically.

 

I've got nothing against ads, but I block flash ads on the grounds that they are a security risk. Although the last time I got infected through a flash ad I was running your favourite AV: Norton. So I should have expected something like that on the grounds that running Norton is pointless because it is rubbish.

Most people don't care about ads. I didn't until I got an infection through one. Wladimir Palant is introducing a policy into ABP for the allowing of non-intrusive ads. This is a step forward as some advertising is not only a security hazard but quite intrusive, let alone many can stall page loading. I agree that the use of adblocking is an odd dilemma. I can even live with streamed ads on TV or film channels, which is only the same as watching IBA or Freeview. I always watch the BBC News however (no advertising on the BBC TV channels), as I pay for it.

 

It's one thing to block pop-ups and flash and quite another to use an adblocker and block all ads. And blocking all ads online is not a good thing no matter what sort of spin a person wants to put on it. BTW... I've been online for fifteen years now and my one and only virus was during my third year for utter foolishness on my part.

If you are blocking all ads (and I'm no longer certain you are doing this) then you are taking a free ride on someone else's dime. And if everyone does this, the internet will change whether you believe it or not. And you can expect paywalls; they're a given under those circumstances. So... how do you use an adblocker selectively???

 

Maybe you'll get an award from the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme for the long time use of a rubbish AV without being infected.

I think Google make enough out of what they can track of me & everyone else to survive. Many are getting 'free rides' selling information that they data mine. So I don't know about that. I pay to use some sites I use a lot. I can live with that.

*Jaw drops & stares into middle distance*

.... A Whitelist???

 

Ah... so as long as Google is doing alright, then everyone else is as well. Is that your answer? And since many are getting free rides selling information that they data mine, then it's perfectly alright for you to get your free ride as well because you don't like any ads showing up on your screen. Right? You say that you pay for some sites. But you're not paying here... right? So, you're avoiding paying here to be a member AND your blocking the ads on this site to at least garner some monetary support for paying for the servers and the domain. And I suspect that this is probably the case most places (if you were to be brutally honest).

Adblockers that are NOT selective (and the ones from Mozilla unlike Opera's are not) are essentially a way to ride the internet on someone else's dime no matter how you want to try and spin this.

So... you have a white list for each and every site you visit? Right. If you are using Adblock Plus or even Adblock, how are you coming up with a whitelist? It's not in the options. And the next thing you're going to tell me is that you also have land in Florida that you'd love to sell to me as well... on the cheap.

Come on, Davezilla... you're not being honest with me or anyone reading this thread and you know it. Folks using adblocker plus from Mozilla are for the most part blocking EVERYTHING on EVERY PAGE. And that is ripping off the site owners, including this one.

It's all well and good to worry about your privacy and being tracked, and quite another to block all ads.

And this is my last post on the subject. I find you overly defensive and argumentative (as I noted in the topic on AV's).

 

It's better to be safe than sorry. It's not my fault that many flash ads are infected. Advertising is fine until it becomes dangerously intrusive. I believe a straw man is being created here.

You seem to have an obsession with 'someone else's dime' which verges on the pathological.

Duh! ... 'Disable On This Page' option? (You have to click the little red octagon with ABP written on it )

No dopey, it is, you can click the ABP icon in the add-on bar (or wherever you have it).

How about real estate on the Moon? After all, you paid for Norton, I reckon you would buy anything.

You're just getting pedantic now, haven't you anything original to say? (Burn the strawman! LOL)

If you can't see the correlation between the two, I can't help you. How about flash cookies?

... & we were having such fun!

The pot calling the kettle black? I think that I stated my point of view proficiently, effectively & adeptly. I guess you've crossed me off your Xmas card list then. LOL

I thought that was the whole point of debating interesting & important topics on the Internet. It's not my fault that you think that Norton is the best AV money can buy (I wouldn't put it into the top thirty). Your debating technique could do with a little bit of refining. It isn't a cogent argument if you just keep stating a tautology that you can't possibly prove.