Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Simon Willison

There's a new bout of "Facebook are listening to you through your microphone to serve targeted ads, no really we have proof now!" discourse, and I'm revisiting my long-term hobby of trying (and failing) to convince people that this isn't happening

It's fascinating to me how hard it is to talk people out of believing this one - there was a podcast episode about exactly this challenge back in 2017 and it's still true today gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-al

13 comments
Simon Willison

Here's one thread on Lobste.rs - triggered by a new story about that thing from December last year where an ad sales team at Cox Media Group were caught lying to their customers about having "active listening" technology that targeted ads based on recorded audio: lobste.rs/s/mf7guc/leak_facebo

Simon Willison

Here's the ad sales pitch deck in question - my "this is a total scam" antenna were vibrating like crazy when I read it documentcloud.org/documents/25

Lewis Cowles

@simon
When I was in my 18-early 20's, I was a bit more chaos fuelled.

I worked out that a certain type of person, with a very specific tattoo, liked one of a few sentences about their tattoo.

I didn't know them. I didn't need to have listened to them. This tattoo, meant I could use a few lines.

All the "ads are listening" folks are saying is "How are the ads being targetted at me?".

gabert

@simon
Yeah i was disillusioned when a video titled "they are listening to us after all" (or something to that accord) had only this pitfh deck to show for proof. It's a nothing sandwich as far as I am concerned until there is literal proof. Here the video in question youtu.be/2wjy-v7RXtg

nilesh

@simon Here is CMG's "denial" from last December.

Note the way this denial is phrased which still allows third-party apps listening & then sharing either the audio or the data inferred from it with CMG.

- They say "do not LISTEN" instead of "do no ANALYZE" conversations.
- "data set" is too broad and includes both raw audio and inferred data.
- "encrypted" is meaningless if CMG has the decryption keys.
- No explanation given for the article published on the official website.

coldclimate

@simon I think it's so resilient because it's technically feasible and believable that they would. I know it's not happening,but I completely believe they would

Emma Jezebel Cat Lady Byrne

@simon I've fallen for this one... Since Cambridge Analytica my "unethical bullshit vs unethical mvp" sensor is badly skewed towards false positives

Hobson Lane

@simon
I had trouble explaining it to a Google Engineer. Took more than an hour.
@miki

Severák

@simon Do you have theory where do these "false positives" came from?
For example my recent meeting with this phenomenon: I visited my boss in his office and he had new server laying around so we talked about new servers for a while... And tada - that day afternoon I saw an ad for servers.
Is this simply Baader-Mainhof phenomena (frequency illusion) or does they have some side channels? (For example - both me and my boss were on same internet connection that day...)

Simon Willison

@severak I think it's coincidence.

Anyone who speaks out loud likely carries a phone with them. Every day that phone is present for hours of spoken conversation.

A few times a year, people go "wow, that targeted ad is suspiciously similar to something I said out loud just now".

They're not taking into account the thousands of hours of audio which did NOT coincide with a relevant ad.

benschwarz

@simon I think people just can't fathom how much data Meta have amassed, and how the ads could possibly be so targeted.

From what I've heard, they do have some super spooky abilities, like take any device MAC address (e.g. from shopping mall Wi-Fi) and be able to both identify the owner as well as their interest cohort

Simon Willison

@benschwarz right - people would be shocked at the amount of information that genuinely gets aggregated about them, so it’s not surprising that they believe the bits that aren’t true considering how much more complex (and opaque) the stuff that’s true is

Go Up