Placing privacy focused content into a user’s suggested feed is likely intentional. Why would any platform actively promote content that is opposed to the company’s business model. It seems rather nonsense for a place like YouTube to promote this type of content, yet they do. Perhaps that is intentional and purposeful. This kind of abstract and indirect problem solving is the kind of thing I am good at in a job if I am given objectives and time to mull over solutions.
Most humans display some kinds of paranoia. It is easy to spin privacy as a disproportionate evil because of the uncertainty of scope and motives involved. The act of suggesting a potential threat in the periphery a few times is enough to get most people to eventually engage with that content. It would be easy and effective to use this suggestive mechanism to push people off of a platform. This pattern loosely fits my experience. I bet it fits with others too. These platforms and ad companies have been hiring the best and brightest psych majors for a decade. All of that talent is used for something profitable.
ELI5 means they wanted the simplified version. The simplified version is that privacy focused individuals don’t bring revenues to platforms like Reddit so for these platforms it’s a good idea to get rid of these users to reduce costs and to only keep the users who bring in revenues.
i’m pretty sure i agree with you, but it took me far too long to understand what you’re saying. you’ve got a great vocabulary. your intended audience probably doesn’t.
Placing privacy focused content into a user’s suggested feed is likely intentional. Why would any platform actively promote content that is opposed to the company’s business model. It seems rather nonsense for a place like YouTube to promote this type of content, yet they do. Perhaps that is intentional and purposeful. This kind of abstract and indirect problem solving is the kind of thing I am good at in a job if I am given objectives and time to mull over solutions.
Most humans display some kinds of paranoia. It is easy to spin privacy as a disproportionate evil because of the uncertainty of scope and motives involved. The act of suggesting a potential threat in the periphery a few times is enough to get most people to eventually engage with that content. It would be easy and effective to use this suggestive mechanism to push people off of a platform. This pattern loosely fits my experience. I bet it fits with others too. These platforms and ad companies have been hiring the best and brightest psych majors for a decade. All of that talent is used for something profitable.
ELI5 means they wanted the simplified version. The simplified version is that privacy focused individuals don’t bring revenues to platforms like Reddit so for these platforms it’s a good idea to get rid of these users to reduce costs and to only keep the users who bring in revenues.
i’m pretty sure i agree with you, but it took me far too long to understand what you’re saying. you’ve got a great vocabulary. your intended audience probably doesn’t.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18875168
Actually simplified explanation