For all the people who keep still saying “no, they are definitely doing it because of this one anecdote that wasn’t even properly tested, but trust me bro it’s real.” (Like [email protected] and [email protected])
Anyone with even a basic understanding of networking can realize how this could be easily tested and proven, especially by the millions of people with deep comprehension, experience, and tools on hand. There is so much incentive to prove this, particularly if the information was then used to sue these companies. So, why hasn’t anyone done this?
Because what the article says is true. They don’t listen to everyone’s conversations. It’s easier and significantly cheaper to just use the data they have on you to both influence you and predict you.
TLDR: they have so much recent time data on you from various sources that they can make you believe that you are being listened
Wasn’t the whole CMG active listening about sending transcription data only? It’s not like it can’t be done directly on the device…
If you read the article, you’d know. Thanks for making a comment, even though you didn’t.
The article makes a presumption, that the active listening is actually sending voice data as audio. Then tries to splurdge, that “acsthually it’s other data”
Then tries to splurdge, that they would require to download all “wanted” words as keywords, and it wouldn’t be feasable.
Not like you would only need some words of intent “I would like to (enter 10 s of transcription)” and just hit send.
The whole article smells of washing, and the question is directed to other people, who maybe followed the story more closely, and actually has the idea what exactly is “active listening”. Maybe someone reversed engineered it.
Thanks for your useless comment
Ah yes, the “splurdge” part of the article, a word everyone knows as a very technical term that’s used for filling in for an inability to articulate an actual line of logic. Instead of logic, just explain that “I don’t like the conclusion of the article, so it must be wrong somehow even though I can’t explain why.”
It’s also important for people to chime in that an article must be wrong because it just “feels wrong”. Of course don’t actually provide any reasoning for it, because why would that be necessary?
Don’t forget how useful it is to ask a question, completely ignoring that the article addresses it. Don’t even bring it up in the questioning. When someone points that out, then the best strategy is to lash out at them, because they were such a big meanie by pointing out the obvious problem of not reading the article.
Lemmy communities are all about feelings, not information!
Oh, also I took a screenshot of your comment because I knew you were going to edit it.
Edit was because it’s uncalled for. Hoped you wouldn’t have to read it. Sorry about that.
So there are more than 9000 apps that take screenshots because somehow that’s in the permissions list that neither Apple nor Google check when they claim to provide security - especially Apple when they claim that locking you in is better for you.
There are news reports of people getting add before babies were born simply because of what people were buying. Sometimes the people didn’t know they were pregnant themselves! That’s how embedded they are in our lives and people go “well, nothing to hide, right?” and don’t even flinch. Imagine being sent to jail because an SD agency detected you were pregnant but aborted it and you live in an antiabortion state.
“Nothing to hide”
They are absolutely listening, I had a family member start getting credit card offers for an unborn baby that wasn’t even named officially yet.
Why would that need listening? I imagine if one is pregnant you are searching for lots of information online: symptoms, physicians, due date etc.
So you may adamantly claim Facebook must have listened in on your private conversation yesterday about a friend’s wedding and then served you an ad for tailored wedding suits because you have not googled anything wedding-related in years. But there are scores of other data points the system has on you to determine what you should see at any given point. Not only does the system know exactly where you are at every moment, it knows who your friends are, what they are interested in, and who you are spending time with. It can track you across all your devices, log call and text metadata on Android phones, and even watch you write something that you end up deleting and never actually send.
It doesn’t need to listen to you when it already controls what you talk about.
Yep, if they can control thought patterns, they can control what you do, and then they can control what you want
The end result being “well why wouldn’t I want ads that show me personalized ads? I’m likely to give more of a shit”, not knowing that you’re signing yourself up for potentially even limiting your nuances Surveillance Capitalism style
I read the article. I can tell the author was paid to write an article to gaslight the theory, but actually managed to illuminate the truth. Thank you, literary artist
