$title$
Ranciere's the ignorant master ?
I just said "testing, testing, testing"
— did you hear it ?
And so, if this is a limited case use, just for
missing children, "how do we know that it's working ?
Is privacy sandbox an effort to turn the web into its own Facebook ?
Eliminate behavioral tracking completely and shift to another economic mode ?
Do we want more control over devices? If we do, who should control them ?
This is about those few rowdy elements or suspicious
people who we want to catch, and so, the form of resistance of
the form of obfuscation if you will, is to say, "how do you know that it works" ?
You really had to look for evidence of these kinds of
technologies' use, so the only kind of resistance we had was, "is this accurate?", and "does it work" ?
If it's a repressive government that then can siphon
information off, is it the appropriate level of governance for this and how do you ensure… ?
And when it became a sorting tool, the question or the form of resistance
became, "how are you doing this? Under what authority of law are you doing this?", right ?
What if, instead of trying to fly under the enemy’s radar,
we let that radar help us find allies with whom we can fly in formation ?
The ad side has extensive ad fraud such as fraudulent clicks.
What do you now know, what is real and what isn't real, in terms of what we can measure ?
How does that impact whether the whole complicated
exercise is even something worthwhile for us to
resist or engage with, or do we really need to overturn the whole thing ?
Tools like AdNauseam are still primarily focussed on an individual.
Sally, is it perhaps that we cannot take such an individual approach ?
We thought that without these technologies
we did a really good job, is the necessity of this really proportionate to our legal rights ?
Can you comment on the ethics of intentional/unintentional negative impact
of obfuscation / subversive AI on the *non-users* of obfuscation / subversive AI ?
Talking about how we can flip the script to talking about the fact
that these technologies are not inevitable, getting into the resistance,
getting into the advocacy game before the use become ubiquitous is a big challenge now, right ?
So how can we know for sure whether AdNauseam clicks work or not ?
Are the clicks that we successfully introduced experimental
click fraud, or can the clicks that we introduced be considered as fraud ?
With that in mind,
is browser-based obfuscation something that is still possible and meaningful ?
So now, from the side of publishers, it's an interesting question
as to whether the publishers would be interested in obfuscation
and what degree of obfuscation, and who would be obfuscated to who ?
So how well does this work ?
Ranciere's the ignorant master ?
I just said "testing, testing, testing"
— did you hear it ?
And so, if this is a limited case use, just for
missing children, "how do we know that it's working ?
Is privacy sandbox an effort to turn the web into its own Facebook ?
Eliminate behavioral tracking completely and shift to another economic mode ?
Do we want more control over devices? If we do, who should control them ?
This is about those few rowdy elements or suspicious
people who we want to catch, and so, the form of resistance of
the form of obfuscation if you will, is to say, "how do you know that it works" ?
You really had to look for evidence of these kinds of
technologies' use, so the only kind of resistance we had was, "is this accurate?", and "does it work" ?
If it's a repressive government that then can siphon
information off, is it the appropriate level of governance for this and how do you ensure… ?
And when it became a sorting tool, the question or the form of resistance
became, "how are you doing this? Under what authority of law are you doing this?", right ?
What if, instead of trying to fly under the enemy’s radar,
we let that radar help us find allies with whom we can fly in formation ?
The ad side has extensive ad fraud such as fraudulent clicks.
What do you now know, what is real and what isn't real, in terms of what we can measure ?
How does that impact whether the whole complicated
exercise is even something worthwhile for us to
resist or engage with, or do we really need to overturn the whole thing ?
Tools like AdNauseam are still primarily focussed on an individual.
Sally, is it perhaps that we cannot take such an individual approach ?
We thought that without these technologies
we did a really good job, is the necessity of this really proportionate to our legal rights ?
Can you comment on the ethics of intentional/unintentional negative impact
of obfuscation / subversive AI on the *non-users* of obfuscation / subversive AI ?
Talking about how we can flip the script to talking about the fact
that these technologies are not inevitable, getting into the resistance,
getting into the advocacy game before the use become ubiquitous is a big challenge now, right ?
So how can we know for sure whether AdNauseam clicks work or not ?
Are the clicks that we successfully introduced experimental
click fraud, or can the clicks that we introduced be considered as fraud ?
With that in mind,
is browser-based obfuscation something that is still possible and meaningful ?
So now, from the side of publishers, it's an interesting question
as to whether the publishers would be interested in obfuscation
and what degree of obfuscation, and who would be obfuscated to who ?
So how well does this work ?