I’m sure we’ve all noticed it. Some notion occurs to you, so you google and then maybe read an article or something about the topic … and then, starting almost immediately, the entire web seems biased to forcing more info about that subject on you.
My most recent example: yesterday I happened to notice that my neighbor’s hydrangeas were a lovely blue color, much more intense than I remember them being previous years. I already knew that hydrangea’s color is dependent on soil pH (among other things) and I wondered if all the recent climate changes and abnormal weather patterns might have had something to do with it, and tried some googling. (If so, I didn’t find anything to confirm the idea during the few minutes I devoted to it.)
After I gave up on that, I went to YouTube. Guess what the first video that was suggested for me was about? And at least five other videos on the first visible page? I mean, in less than five minutes from the stray idea hitting me → google → YouTube searched out five videos about how to change your hydrangea’s colors and proudly displayed them for me.
This is both somewhat impressive and more than slightly scary.
It isn’t only Googling that causes it, of course. If I’m intrigued enough to click on an ad on some random webpage about, oh, a ring woven from copper wire, I will see ads for somewhat similar crafted items on any other pages I visit, maybe persisting for weeks!
So, are similar records being collected by the FBI or NSA or whatever about every page I visit, every article I read, every word I post?
If I started a thread here asking for opinions about the most efficient way to behead annoying politicians, would I instantly acquire a ‘suspicious person’ notation in government files?
Ummm, you’re aware that Google owns YouTube, right? I’d be disappointed if, after searching on Google YouTube did not offer videos discussing my topic.
As @kayaker almost said, what the advertising / social media industry can do has zero to do with what the government does, except insofar as that demonstrates what is technologically possible given sufficient resources.
You might remember this guy. If not, go get his book and read it.
Summarizing mightily …
He would have gone to prison for a very long time had he not disappeared into Russia because he revealed to the world that yes the USA government is monitoring and recording everything that passes through the internet everywhere, but specifically including what passes through the USA. Including everything done by all US citizens and companies. Everything.
The government’s response to these revelations was to swear that they’d never misuse this information. As one bigwig candidly put it: “Our job is to find the needle in the haystack. Which means we first have to gather the haystack.”
So yes, you can assume 100% of what you see and do is recorded. And is cursorily glanced over by various algorithms looking for … whatever the government is interested in. Which is probably not your preferences in cat videos or the hydrangea color :: soil pH relationship.
Now if for whatever reason you do pique the interest of an algorithm, who knows what happens next? But just as a practical matter of headcount, no agency could have the number of employees required to be constantly looking over your shoulder as Joe or Jane Boring American Consumer.
Sleep tight, America. Big Brother is watching and will answer to whoever is running the White House. Whether that person is the President, or the President’s handler.
I have always thought so. I am not sure of the exact timing, but after 9/11, the iPhone emerged, as well as Facebook and Google as prominent entities. What better way to surveil the population than to get them to voluntarily share what they’re thinking, what they’re doing, where, with whom, and when? Give them a shiny new device, an app that is designed to get them to engage and share, and the ability to search for anything at any time - capture all that and have software bots explore the data to look for…stuff.
Yeah, the companies sing a song about privacy and data security and not sharing info and some such, but you have to accept that your every keystroke is possibly captured and seen by more than your intended audience. it’s like the situation with TikTok - we know the Chinese government has access to user information on the platform, because that’s what we’re doing with the US-based apps.
Yeah, I don’t know why everyone was so surprised. What do folks think was in the Patriot Act? We (meaning the officials we elected to represent us) passed a law requiring government agencies to do this. And many of us, at the time, warned that that was exactly what the act would do. And now we’re shocked that they’re doing what we told them to?
Well, I’m old enough and way boring enough to not really care all that much about info any evil government agency has about me. I find the “here’s more info about something you had a TINY interest in to begin with” more of a drag.
I am TIRED of hydrangeas! Several years ago I watched a video about trimming cow hoofs. Why, I’m not sure, mainly I was bored and it was something I’d never thought about before, and it was only 12 minutes long or so and so why not? I’ve never watched a second, but still links to more vids about treating cow hoof diseases pop up at least every other month. Oh, and the tree trimming videos!
Tell me there is a method to tell these purveyors “no more!” Clearly I will watch all sorts of unusual stuff out of idle curiosity but there doesn’t seem to be any way to say “enough, my wish for info on this subject has been thoroughly satisfied at one.”
(1) You can go into your watch history and remove videos related to the topic. This should stop the algorithm from using them in its recommendations
(2) You can take the videos and click “Not Interested” from the drop-down or even “Do not show this channel”. This should train the algorithm that you’re not into bovine pedicures regardless of what you once watched in the past.
If some cow hoof trimming video blows up on Youtube, you still might be offered it as a “Hey, everyone is watching this!” selection but it should reduce it from your daily use.
[quote ]
(1) You can go into your watch history and remove videos related to the topic. This should stop the algorithm from using them in its recommendations
Okay, I figured out how to do this, but only by one vid at a time or by picking a time range. I was hoping to be able to say something like "nothing with the word XXXX in its title,
(2) You can take the videos and click “Not Interested” from the drop-down or even “Do not show this channel”. This should train the algorithm that you’re not into bovine pedicures regardless of what you once watched in the past.
Does ‘take the videos’ mean ‘click on them as if to play?’ and then use the three dots on the right? If so, I did that to all my hydangea choices today. Will see if it makes a difference.
Some other things, don’t use Google search or YouTube while logged into your Google account. If you’re using Chrome, switch to another browser. Clear your browser cookies every day. Use an adblocker extension in your browser.
I have a few browser extensions that “Hide YouTube related videos, comments, video suggestions wall, homepage recommendations, trending tab, and other distractions” including shorts and other things I find annoying. I have another extension called "blocktube’ that blocks videos with keywords in titles, e.g. “my dream…” or “reacts” or “shocked” etc. that I set.
I did some canvassing before the 2020 election, and had a 20-something Stereotypical Angry Anti-Government Dork tell me “Oh, no, get away from me. I don’t want THEM tracking me!”
He had an Apple Watch on, and I laughed and said “Wellll, businesses have been tracking you for years. Apple and Amazon and Google already know everything about you… so I’ll leave you alone, and you can enjoy telling yourself you’re anonymous.”
That was harsh, but I wish someone would’ve shown me (the Libertarian teenager) the inherent contradictions in my world view…
Few people realize that the Department of Agriculture is tracking every mention of hydrangeas online and adding them to its database for future action.
Curiously, I’ve noticed several recent postings on Facebook with images of blue blue hydrangeas, which made me feel inferior since the few hydrangeas we have (planted by a previous homeowner) only produced scant light purple flower heads this year.
I’m sure glad I didn’t click on any of those Facebook hydrangea posts, or I’d be under surveillance now.
*when the Aaron Hernandez murder case made news years ago, they showed pictures of his Massachusetts house, and there were terrific blue hydrangeas in his garden. True story.
This is (according to the Snowden files) not accurate.
The government has the ability to issue warrants and search data in accordance with those warrants. This allows them to do things like track down terrorists and pedophiles, and their networks.
What’s questionable about all of this is that much of the high level search metadata - e.g. records of who called who - are regularly made available so that, when a warrant is issued, the government already has the bulk of the data that it needs and it can efficiently start scanning through it.
This, of course, presumes that they’re doing so only with the requisite warrant and only to the limit of what the warrant allows.
But likewise, the negative case also assumes that the government is super slick at the programming, has amazing search algorithms, and good network speeds. Personally, I’d venture to guess that the actual functioning of all of this is pretty clunky and horrible, and where Google can push your results over to YouTube in a split second, the government is probably getting yearly dumps that are too big for them to even process and there’s a backlog of cases waiting for the data from 2021 to ingest into the system, still.
In general, I’d say that you shouldn’t commit crimes. They probably will, eventually, catch you. But I really sort of doubt that they have the time or resources to do much more than what they’re actually trying to do. I’d doubt that they even have the capacity to try and track down everyone on the Internet who ever threatened to kill someone, let alone figuring you whether Joe Nobody is watching Disney+ or HBO tonight.
I hereby announce that I am a TRUE BLUE American! I LOOOVE blue flowers, all blue flowers, but especially blue hydrangeas. (I just didn’t need to read about them anymore, since I’m already deeply in love with all things blue hydrangea!
In fact, it is those commie sympathizers that admit PINKO hydrangeas to their yards that are the danger. (I’m sure they already know that, but just in case I though I should point stat out.)
And worst of all are those turncoats that display PURPLE PINKO hydrangeas! Traitors, one and all, trying to cover up their sins.
They’ll be (deservedly) the first ones against the wall when the time comes. Trust me.
It also presupposes that the warrant-obtaining process is anything other than a routine rubberstamp.
Not factually accurate as to NSA. They were live real time absorbing substantially everything. 15 years ago.
Agree completely on not being a criminal and that no human is watching me. And any AI algorithm trawling the whole daily flux of data looking for signs of terrorists (foreign or domestic) or drug couriers or money launderers or insider traders or [whatever] won’t notice anything interesting as it passes over my records. And if it does mistakenly flag me for further scrutiny, the next level AI probably will label that a false alarm and move on.
But if the definition of “crime” is changed to include “writing things critical of the government or its leader on the internet”, as is the case in so many authoritarian countries, well … some of us might have a problem with that.
The Stasi’s file were dangerous not only for what they were used for, but for what they could be used for. Their mere existence was a major deterrent to the Germans ever achieving freedom. The existence of the NSA files is a major risk factor to the Americans retaining freedom.
