tech_and_films
Joined Dec 2024
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1
tech_and_films's rating
Reviews1
tech_and_films's rating
Positives: Good direction
Negatives: Even though there is a lot to dislike on how Google and Facebook manage tech progress, this film presents an overly dramatized perspective of the fake ad-clicks problem. It seems that the goal of this film is to make us feel outraged towards big tech firms rather than foster a productive dialogue. In an age where most people feel scared of the fast advancement of technology, the value of such biased representations is questionable. Read on for specific examples.
In summary, the narrator suggests that Google and Facebook dominate the digital advertising market, and that a significant portion of this advertising may be fraudulent, largely focusing on fake-ad clicks issue on 3rd party websites. It also implies that these companies do little to address this issue.
The problem of fake clicks undeniably exists. However there are multiple angles to explore to understand this phenomenon -- For instance, the film fails to mention the positive aspects of third-party property advertising and why it is more susceptible to fraud. For example this model allows any one of us to earn a living by creating and monetizing our own websites. This freedom, however, makes it challenging for ad networks to effectively control the content and the user engagement increasing the potential for fraudulent activity.
-- Similarly, the documentary suggests that an app downloaded from the Google Play Store may have led to the unauthorized use of a person's data in Africa which resulted in significant cost. Let's accept that this was the true cause ,even though the film presents no evidence,the film didn't mention the broader implications of Android's open-source nature. While security vulnerabilities exist, Android's accessibility has democratized smartphone ownership,making smartphone accessible to the less privileged across the globe
-- The film lacks any comparison with other advertising mediums, such as television. Do advertisers know how much revenue or acquisitions they gain back due to the ad spend on TV? Could it be argued that digital advertising, despite the issue of fake clicks, offers a potentially fairer and more transparent approach for advertisers due to its competitive bidding processes? It would be great if the film explored such questions.(Disclaimer: an ongoing investigation is examining whether Google may have manipulated its bidding process to favor its own properties. This investigation could potentially undermine the argument for digital advertising's inherent fairness. However,what I claim is that the film failed to explore this discussion)
The narrator states that no one cares about this fraud. However there are lots of people working on these products to ensure better approval processes and take down websites that commit fraud.
-- There are lots of blog articles on how big tech firms try to handle the issue of fake traffic and fraudulent ad spend.
-- Not only that, many Greeks have worked in these teams. Perhaps the producers and main characters who are Greek or live in Greece could have reached out to these individuals, even unofficially, to gain insight into their work. Even though Google and Facebook declined to comment, it would have provided a more balanced perspective.
Towards the end of the film, the issue of ads being displayed on websites that spread misinformation is introduced. It's unclear why the director chose to include this, as it's a separate and highly complex problem. As a result, the topic was addressed only superficially.
--For example there was no mention of how hard it is to define what is misinformation and what is freedom of speech and whether it is the responsibility and privilege of the big tech firms to define such boundaries.
To end, big tech firms obviously make a lot of mistakes, but who gains from completely demonizing them? Do we want people to be afraid of tech firms and any new technology? I would argue that a more balanced representation of the issues could help to open a real productive discussion and help us challenge the big tech firms more effectively.
Negatives: Even though there is a lot to dislike on how Google and Facebook manage tech progress, this film presents an overly dramatized perspective of the fake ad-clicks problem. It seems that the goal of this film is to make us feel outraged towards big tech firms rather than foster a productive dialogue. In an age where most people feel scared of the fast advancement of technology, the value of such biased representations is questionable. Read on for specific examples.
In summary, the narrator suggests that Google and Facebook dominate the digital advertising market, and that a significant portion of this advertising may be fraudulent, largely focusing on fake-ad clicks issue on 3rd party websites. It also implies that these companies do little to address this issue.
The problem of fake clicks undeniably exists. However there are multiple angles to explore to understand this phenomenon -- For instance, the film fails to mention the positive aspects of third-party property advertising and why it is more susceptible to fraud. For example this model allows any one of us to earn a living by creating and monetizing our own websites. This freedom, however, makes it challenging for ad networks to effectively control the content and the user engagement increasing the potential for fraudulent activity.
-- Similarly, the documentary suggests that an app downloaded from the Google Play Store may have led to the unauthorized use of a person's data in Africa which resulted in significant cost. Let's accept that this was the true cause ,even though the film presents no evidence,the film didn't mention the broader implications of Android's open-source nature. While security vulnerabilities exist, Android's accessibility has democratized smartphone ownership,making smartphone accessible to the less privileged across the globe
-- The film lacks any comparison with other advertising mediums, such as television. Do advertisers know how much revenue or acquisitions they gain back due to the ad spend on TV? Could it be argued that digital advertising, despite the issue of fake clicks, offers a potentially fairer and more transparent approach for advertisers due to its competitive bidding processes? It would be great if the film explored such questions.(Disclaimer: an ongoing investigation is examining whether Google may have manipulated its bidding process to favor its own properties. This investigation could potentially undermine the argument for digital advertising's inherent fairness. However,what I claim is that the film failed to explore this discussion)
The narrator states that no one cares about this fraud. However there are lots of people working on these products to ensure better approval processes and take down websites that commit fraud.
-- There are lots of blog articles on how big tech firms try to handle the issue of fake traffic and fraudulent ad spend.
-- Not only that, many Greeks have worked in these teams. Perhaps the producers and main characters who are Greek or live in Greece could have reached out to these individuals, even unofficially, to gain insight into their work. Even though Google and Facebook declined to comment, it would have provided a more balanced perspective.
Towards the end of the film, the issue of ads being displayed on websites that spread misinformation is introduced. It's unclear why the director chose to include this, as it's a separate and highly complex problem. As a result, the topic was addressed only superficially.
--For example there was no mention of how hard it is to define what is misinformation and what is freedom of speech and whether it is the responsibility and privilege of the big tech firms to define such boundaries.
To end, big tech firms obviously make a lot of mistakes, but who gains from completely demonizing them? Do we want people to be afraid of tech firms and any new technology? I would argue that a more balanced representation of the issues could help to open a real productive discussion and help us challenge the big tech firms more effectively.