Do people often tell you they like surveillance because personalised ads are useful? That’s a madness

“But personalised ads are really convenient!”

Not seeing ads is really convenient, and I have trouble understanding why anyone wouldn’t block ads aggressively on every device they spend much time using in 2025.

To cover a couple common objections:

It’s a corporate/institutional device and I can’t

Then it’s the institution’s IT department I’m puzzled by. If I was running corporate IT, ad blocking would be part of the standard install. The FBI recommends it for security.

The device is too locked down for that

Why would you buy such a device, or continue using it now that you know better?

“They’ve already got my data”

From our site: https://www.rebeltechalliance.org/gotmydata.html

The main retort to this is

“No they don’t - they need to continually replenish their profile on you for it to be useful. If you cut off the supply now, then their power fades.” That’s why their data harvesting is so aggressive. It needs to be, otherwise their promise to advertisers of being able to predict what you’ll want, and when you’ll want it, cannot be fulfilled.

You just need to step off the playing field and their game comes grinding to a halt!

I already “get it” and I don’t find this argument too convincing.

If you’re 25 years old and cut them off, they still have :

• your data from the last 24 years
• the data of everyone in your demographic
• the data of your family, friends, and coworkers

(Yes, I get that it’s different if everyone cuts off data harvesting at the same time, but this is about convincing one person.)

Ads are needed to create incommings needed by an service, but legit are only contextual ads, but not personalized ones results of surveilance and profiling, worst if also used with tracking and metadata logging. This is the main reason why the use of adblocker and other filter measures are mandatory, sorry for those which use only contextual banners to create some incommings.

I really like the Privacy Is Power book and the author’s TEDx talk .

I have some quotes to share, though about the government side of things

“The digital age has created the semblance of social connection, while empowering autocrats to better surveil, control, and disrupt perceived political opponents. China, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have used digital tools to silence opponents, spread propaganda and disinformation, and sow polarization and division among their rivals. So, too, have regimes in smaller countries, like Togo and Bahrain, relied on digital surveillance to curtail civil society. Recent trends among mass movements also show some cause for concern.” (Erica Chenoweth - Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know)

And 3 from “No Place To Hide”:

“Initially, it is always the country’s dissidents and marginalized who bear the brunt of the surveillance, leading those who support the government or are merely apathetic to mistakenly believe they are immune. And history shows that the mere existence of a mass surveillance apparatus, regardless of how it is used, is in itself sufficient to stifle dissent. A citizenry that is aware of always being watched quickly becomes a compliant and fearful one.”

“All of the evidence highlights the implicit bargain that is offered to citizens: pose no challenge and you have nothing to worry about. Mind your own business, and support or at least tolerate what we do, and you’ll be fine. Put differently, you must refrain from provoking the authority that wields surveillance powers if you wish to be deemed free of wrongdoing. This is a deal that invites passivity, obedience, and conformity. The safest course, the way to ensure being “left alone,” is to remain quiet, unthreatening, and compliant.”

“Mass surveillance is a universal temptation for any unscrupulous power. And in every instance, the motive is the same: suppressing dissent and mandating compliance. Surveillance thus unites governments of otherwise remarkably divergent political creeds. At the turn of the twentieth century, the British and French empires both created specialized monitoring departments to deal with the threat of anticolonialist movements. After World War II, the East German Ministry of State Security, popularly known as the Stasi, became synonymous with government intrusion into personal lives. And more recently, as popular protests during the Arab Spring challenged dictators’ grasp on power, the regimes in Syria, Egypt, and Libya all sought to spy on the Internet use of domestic dissenters. Investigations by Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal have shown that as these dictatorships were overwhelmed by protestors, they literally went shopping for surveillance tools from Western technology companies. Syria’s Assad regime flew in employees from the Italian surveillance company Area SpA, who were told that the Syrians “urgently needed to track people.” In Egypt, Mubarak’s secret police bought tools to penetrate Skype encryption and eavesdrop on activists’ calls. And in Libya, the Journal reported, journalists and rebels who entered a government monitoring center in 2011 found “a wall of black refrigerator-size devices” from the French surveillance company Amesys. The equipment “inspected the Internet traffic” of Libya’s main Internet service provider, “opening emails, divining passwords, snooping on online chats and mapping connections among various suspects.” The ability to eavesdrop on people’s communications vests immense power in those who do it. And unless such power is held in check by rigorous oversight and accountability, it is almost certain to be abused.” (Glenn Greenwald, “No Place To Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State”)

deleted by creator

Thanks, that was an interesting read