> "TikTok empowers users with transparent information about its privacy practices and gives them multiple tools to customise their experience," a TikTok spokesperson says. "Advertising pixels are industry standard and used widely across social and media platforms"
Such Doublespeak—the word empower really means enfeeble and privacy its opposite.
There should be digital riots, where people team up to fight such abusive practices.
Thinking of AdNauseam extension, but next level. Surely there should be a very simple and effective way to disrupt such practices when people organize. Is there any precedent for such thing?
Truthfully, things like uBlock are digital protests. They look different than people marching in a street but they are organized and pushing back against the oppression. But it does look different and isn't as extreme as a riot.
> TikTok empowers users with transparent information about its privacy practices and gives them multiple tools to customise their experience," a TikTok spokesperson says. "Advertising pixels are industry standard and used widely across social and media platforms"
- Are we really empowered to stop being surveilled?
- Does the customization of my experience have any bearing with the actual allegation of tracking non-users on the internet?
- Are advertising pixels transparently shown to those who never have been on TikTok but are monitored all the same?
(edit: To be clear, Doublespeak isn't about a lie as much as words losing their entire meaning and being used to hide truth with comfortable phrasinggs)
If it's not a lie, it is still an immoral practice.
The article details how Tiktok is using the tracking to collect data on non-tiktok users to build profiles of people without their consent, and trying to say that people consent to it in their "downflow" usage of sites that have tiktok embeds.
Again, even if others are doing it, it's shitty and unethical.
Lots to blame Tiktok for but I believe this is completely ubiquitous across the internet. Every major brand with a digital marketing department does this.
I don't understand why such obvious bullshit serves any function whatsoever. If everyone knows it's bullshit, why is this better than saying "we violate your privacy as much as is legally possible, and sometimes more than that."
> Why are they still spending hundreds of millions on ads with athletes and other things that provoke a healthy image?
Because they are foolish enough to believe that advertising actually works to influence people's behavior. Or because they are afraid that their bosses are similarly foolish, so they will get punished if they try to do Coca-Cola the favor of cutting that extreme waste from the budget.
And if I choose to drink a Coke, then so be it. I'm not forced to, and I'm aware of the fact that I am consenting to whatever ill effects I might get by purchasing and consuming it.
These pixels are a horse of a different color. They grab my info with no consent given (hiding behind "But the site we have the pixel on has to inform you, not us!" is a complete and utter cop out) and then make a profit selling or using it.
Totally different circumstances, and this shouldn't be ok.
Sir, this thread is about corporate PR phrasing/excusing /marketing when everyone knows something is the opposite. You might've replied to the wrong thread here.
There's plenty of evidence that many people are not making rational and informed decisions due to advertising practices. That is absolutely being forced into things
Such Doublespeak—the word empower really means enfeeble and privacy its opposite.