▲ 662 ▼ become unprofitable (lemmy.blahaj.zone) submitted 4 months ago by not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments mullvad canvas blocker ublock duck.ai if you have to
[–] pipes@sh.itjust.works 60 points 4 months ago (3 children) Don't set your date only to 1970-01-01. Set it wildly wrong every time, lie about your gender, etc permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 34 points 4 months ago (2 children) Setting a different date every time sets a (probably unique) pattern. Everyone using the same date every time makes it useless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 months ago (2 children) Realistically it won't be that many people in their networks of data that use the same date, 01-01-1970 in this case, and they might even use that trend of date when possible to infer that you like technology or are in certain circles. Random dates sound safer to me. I don't see how using random ones could end up in some unique-to-you pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 months ago (1 child) Xkcd illustrates the issue nicely: https://xkcd.com/1105/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago On one hand I agree, but on the other, if you use 01-01-1970 everywhere, you'd be that one guy (with the IIIII plate), because as I still believe, the amount of people using that date everywhere would never be big enough to void the fields value to the ad networks. Which is why I think using a random one is best, it at the very least changes my data for each account I own. But in a purely theoretical way, I do agree. Practically however, I don't think it will work, since not enough people will do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Humans are bad at coming up with random numbers. Internal biases with show a unique pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Does that apply to date fields? Most have dropdown menus where you can just do a big scroll and click wherever it lands. Maybe if you had to type one out, but both methods mixed together makes it harder to predict your "pattern" (i would guess). I'm not fully convinced a unique pattern would emerge in this scenario, but maybe i'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago (1 child) But what if I was born on New Year's Day in 1970? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago If everyone's using it, then it's still beneficial in obscuring your actual data. Even better since they can't just discard the date outright as it is a viable birthdate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* dude i lie to myself about my gender sometimes. the government's got no chance of figuring it out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago (1 child) but what if i think i lie about my gender but then realize im trans? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kommeavsted@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago* Gender really is just a cat in a box. Never observe it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ech@lemmy.ca 34 points 4 months ago (2 children) Setting a different date every time sets a (probably unique) pattern. Everyone using the same date every time makes it useless. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 months ago (2 children) Realistically it won't be that many people in their networks of data that use the same date, 01-01-1970 in this case, and they might even use that trend of date when possible to infer that you like technology or are in certain circles. Random dates sound safer to me. I don't see how using random ones could end up in some unique-to-you pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 months ago (1 child) Xkcd illustrates the issue nicely: https://xkcd.com/1105/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago On one hand I agree, but on the other, if you use 01-01-1970 everywhere, you'd be that one guy (with the IIIII plate), because as I still believe, the amount of people using that date everywhere would never be big enough to void the fields value to the ad networks. Which is why I think using a random one is best, it at the very least changes my data for each account I own. But in a purely theoretical way, I do agree. Practically however, I don't think it will work, since not enough people will do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Humans are bad at coming up with random numbers. Internal biases with show a unique pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Does that apply to date fields? Most have dropdown menus where you can just do a big scroll and click wherever it lands. Maybe if you had to type one out, but both methods mixed together makes it harder to predict your "pattern" (i would guess). I'm not fully convinced a unique pattern would emerge in this scenario, but maybe i'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago (1 child) But what if I was born on New Year's Day in 1970? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago If everyone's using it, then it's still beneficial in obscuring your actual data. Even better since they can't just discard the date outright as it is a viable birthdate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 months ago (2 children) Realistically it won't be that many people in their networks of data that use the same date, 01-01-1970 in this case, and they might even use that trend of date when possible to infer that you like technology or are in certain circles. Random dates sound safer to me. I don't see how using random ones could end up in some unique-to-you pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 months ago (1 child) Xkcd illustrates the issue nicely: https://xkcd.com/1105/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago On one hand I agree, but on the other, if you use 01-01-1970 everywhere, you'd be that one guy (with the IIIII plate), because as I still believe, the amount of people using that date everywhere would never be big enough to void the fields value to the ad networks. Which is why I think using a random one is best, it at the very least changes my data for each account I own. But in a purely theoretical way, I do agree. Practically however, I don't think it will work, since not enough people will do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Humans are bad at coming up with random numbers. Internal biases with show a unique pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Does that apply to date fields? Most have dropdown menus where you can just do a big scroll and click wherever it lands. Maybe if you had to type one out, but both methods mixed together makes it harder to predict your "pattern" (i would guess). I'm not fully convinced a unique pattern would emerge in this scenario, but maybe i'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ech@lemmy.ca 22 points 4 months ago (1 child) Xkcd illustrates the issue nicely: https://xkcd.com/1105/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago On one hand I agree, but on the other, if you use 01-01-1970 everywhere, you'd be that one guy (with the IIIII plate), because as I still believe, the amount of people using that date everywhere would never be big enough to void the fields value to the ad networks. Which is why I think using a random one is best, it at the very least changes my data for each account I own. But in a purely theoretical way, I do agree. Practically however, I don't think it will work, since not enough people will do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago On one hand I agree, but on the other, if you use 01-01-1970 everywhere, you'd be that one guy (with the IIIII plate), because as I still believe, the amount of people using that date everywhere would never be big enough to void the fields value to the ad networks. Which is why I think using a random one is best, it at the very least changes my data for each account I own. But in a purely theoretical way, I do agree. Practically however, I don't think it will work, since not enough people will do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Humans are bad at coming up with random numbers. Internal biases with show a unique pattern. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Does that apply to date fields? Most have dropdown menus where you can just do a big scroll and click wherever it lands. Maybe if you had to type one out, but both methods mixed together makes it harder to predict your "pattern" (i would guess). I'm not fully convinced a unique pattern would emerge in this scenario, but maybe i'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Does that apply to date fields? Most have dropdown menus where you can just do a big scroll and click wherever it lands. Maybe if you had to type one out, but both methods mixed together makes it harder to predict your "pattern" (i would guess). I'm not fully convinced a unique pattern would emerge in this scenario, but maybe i'm wrong. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago (1 child) But what if I was born on New Year's Day in 1970? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ech@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago If everyone's using it, then it's still beneficial in obscuring your actual data. Even better since they can't just discard the date outright as it is a viable birthdate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ech@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago If everyone's using it, then it's still beneficial in obscuring your actual data. Even better since they can't just discard the date outright as it is a viable birthdate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* dude i lie to myself about my gender sometimes. the government's got no chance of figuring it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago (1 child) but what if i think i lie about my gender but then realize im trans? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kommeavsted@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago* Gender really is just a cat in a box. Never observe it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kommeavsted@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago* Gender really is just a cat in a box. Never observe it. permalink fedilink source parent
