POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Call me paranoid, but I'll never have any Amazon Echo or Google Nest voice-activated devices in my house. In the US, if you're a customer of a company they generally don't need your permission to gather quite a bit of your data to use for just about any purposes and store it for any length of time. Even when they do need permission they usually get it in some sneaky way with a bunch of long-winded legalese that encourages you not to read the fine print and just hit the "I Agree" button.

Now, let's take Amazon Echo. In Michigan we are generally considered to be a one-party state (this was reaffirmed in a recent state court ruling) - if you're party to a private conversation, you don't need any other party's permission to record it yourself, however you cannot have someone else record it on your behalf unless all parties agree. The key word "party" means that in order to record, you must be an acknowledged participant in the discussion - so you can't legally eavesdrop. Where does that leave Amazon if you're a customer who uses their voice-activated products and services? Does simply saying "Hey Alexa..." then legally make them a party to your conversation and only for the amount of time you interact with the Alexa service? Or are they always a party because their Echo devices are present in the house at all times, on standby, with your consent?

This makes me wonder if the features of Echo/Alexa are more limited in Europe where GDPR regulations are in force.

[The Sicatoka]

You're right. It's far more simple to explain it with a Batman-like network monitoring every conversation on every device in America simultaneously, processing that data, and serving ads all while somehow hiding the massive server farms and bandwidth required to make that all work all of which would have to happen with the thousands of people responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining that system never spilling their guts to the press.

Sure thing.

You're right. Can't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/b...tening-to-you/

[dxmnkd316]

Then that profile is either too generic or really messed up. (Or she's hidin' stars-n-bars behind the stacks of English literature on her shelves.)

You're right. It's far more simple to explain it with a Batman-like network monitoring every conversation on every device in America simultaneously, processing that data, and serving ads all while somehow hiding the massive server farms and bandwidth required to make that all work all of which would have to happen with the thousands of people responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining that system never spilling their guts to the press.

Sure thing.

[The Sicatoka]

Then that profile is either too generic or really messed up. (Or she's hidin' stars-n-bars behind the stacks of English literature on her shelves.)

[dxmnkd316]

Does the Biden sign she had in her front yard fit the NASCAR profile? That she's faculty at a local private college?

Unless she's closet pining for Martin Truex Jr* it just doesn't fit.


*I had to Google a name because my favorite and only NASCAR name I know, Dick Trickle, is dead.

Your ads are built around a profile. They make educated and fairly accurate guesses about you based on your search and browsing history, your location, in store purchases, your friends and their profiles, people you follow on Twitter, etc. When you get enough of that data aggregated, it makes it pretty easy to pick out trends. They probably targeted her because she fit an ad profile NASCAR was trying to reach "Middle age, white, ruralish, conservative, etc"

Even if that pattern doesn't match, it's almost certainly based on a profile that is somewhat generic that matches her. It ain't hard.

[The Sicatoka]

Myth.

Your ads are built around a profile. They make educated and fairly accurate guesses about you based on your search and browsing history, your location, in store purchases, your friends and their profiles, people you follow on Twitter, etc. When you get enough of that data aggregated, it makes it pretty easy to pick out trends. They probably targeted her because she fit an ad profile NASCAR was trying to reach "Middle age, white, ruralish, conservative, etc"

Even if that pattern doesn't match, it's almost certainly based on a profile that is somewhat generic that matches her. It ain't hard.

Does the Biden sign she had in her front yard fit the NASCAR profile? That she's faculty at a local private college?

Unless she's closet pining for Martin Truex Jr* it just doesn't fit.


*I had to Google a name because my favorite and only NASCAR name I know, Dick Trickle, is dead.

[dxmnkd316]

Sidebar regarding folks not realizing how tracked/monitored we are:

The most liberal neighbor I have was oblivious to the phone/camera/GPS she carries with her monitoring her. I told her to spend a couple minutes talking about how she's always wanted to attend a NASCAR race and how she thinks it'd be great fun, with her phone in the room. (Hint: she wouldn't be caught dead at any race track.) Next time she opened a browser on her phone one of the ads was for ... NASCAR! 8-o

Myth.

Your ads are built around a profile. They make educated and fairly accurate guesses about you based on your search and browsing history, your location, in store purchases, your friends and their profiles, people you follow on Twitter, etc. When you get enough of that data aggregated, it makes it pretty easy to pick out trends. They probably targeted her because she fit an ad profile NASCAR was trying to reach "Middle age, white, ruralish, conservative, etc"

Even if that pattern doesn't match, it's almost certainly based on a profile that is somewhat generic that matches her. It ain't hard.

[The Sicatoka]

Cool story, bro.

It was freakin' creepy. She thought I'd messed with her phone. (<-- Um, no. Its phone case is more bedazzled than yours.)

[rufus]

Sidebar regarding folks not realizing how tracked/monitored we are:

The most liberal neighbor I have was oblivious to the phone/camera/GPS she carries with her monitoring her. I told her to spend a couple minutes talking about how she's always wanted to attend a NASCAR race and how she thinks it'd be great fun, with her phone in the room. (Hint: she wouldn't be caught dead at any race track.) Next time she opened a browser on her phone one of the ads was for ... NASCAR! 8-o

Cool story, bro.

[Handyman]

I can't fix the folks that don't realize they're being tracked and monitored constantly via that phone/camera/GPS* most carry.

I can advocate for a solution that makes sense: federally paid voter ID for all US citizens and it being required to vote.

No one is asking you to. But you don't get to pretend that just because YOU support it the right way that the majority of the people whom you support do. They dont and they dont even pretend to. They know their voters have IDs that is all they care about. They wont fund roads like they are going to fund fucking sending everyone an ID.

So until that changes their motives are far from pure.

[Handyman]

If there are no issues, why are Ms Abrams and Sen Manchin working on a non-issue. Something there does not align.

Because it is the only way to get the bill even looked at by your side of the aisle. It is called compromise look it up...

But please...show me all of the stats on voter fraud. Give me legit sources that cite actual proof. I won't hold my breath because they literally don't exist.

See this is why people have an issue with you. You think that because you keep repeating the same vague point with zero context that somehow makes your argument more valid. It isn't. Just because Abrams has decided to support Voter ID doesn't mean there was any fraud and it doesn't mean it is any more legitimate than it was before. What it means is she is willing to support something she doesn't like to try and get 10 things she does like. It means that she is willing to let a Democratic Lead Government put forth what will likely be a more equitably enforced and implemented Voter ID initiative (like the one you support) if it means more open voting options. Hell most Dems support Voter ID if it is fair, the problem is always it is never fair. Under this compromise it is a one size fits all system that will be implemented by people who actually think the Government has a role in these types of actions. (unlike the people who usually champion it who hate government and starve it except for the bloat that is the military)

In other words, stop being disingenuous. You are smart enough to know why she did it and it has zero to do with fraud or anything else you are implying. She is doing it because it is a small concession to make to ensure the security of voting rights for MILLIONS. Plus she is helping the Dems flat out call the GOP bluff.

[The Sicatoka]

But you can vote with them!

Sidebar regarding folks not realizing how tracked/monitored we are:

The most liberal neighbor I have was oblivious to the phone/camera/GPS she carries with her monitoring her. I told her to spend a couple minutes talking about how she's always wanted to attend a NASCAR race and how she thinks it'd be great fun, with her phone in the room. (Hint: she wouldn't be caught dead at any race track.) Next time she opened a browser on her phone one of the ads was for ... NASCAR! 8-o

[rufus]

Still on the driver's license thing ...
I used that to point out that in effect we already have a national ID, just with a state name on it, for those who drive. Some may not want to face it, but it's there.

To your query:
Driving is a privilege (pay); voting is a right of a US citizen (free ID).

And here comes the "yeah but".

Its all you people do.

[aparch]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...anamo-bay-book

Former President Trump reportedly suggested sending Americans infected with COVID-19 to Guantanamo Bay in an effort to stem the rapidly growing number of cases on U.S. soil in the early days of the pandemic, according to a new book.
Trump, during a February 2020 meeting in the Situation Room as administration officials were discussing whether to bring infected Americans home for care, reportedly asked the attendees “Don’t we have an island that we own?” and “What about Guantanamo?”

Uhhhhh.......

[The Sicatoka]

Then why not free drivers licenses, since those get us 'effectively' there?

Still on the driver's license thing ...
I used that to point out that in effect we already have a national ID, just with a state name on it, for those who drive. Some may not want to face it, but it's there.

To your query:
Driving is a privilege (pay); voting is a right of a US citizen (free ID).