I always thought their top tier offering to their advertiser customers should be "Inconspicuously, over an extended amount of time, subtly respond to the user in a way that nudges them towards purchasing customer's goods and services, without ever directly mentioning anything. Slowly and surely sculpt the person who, through their own volition and thought process, buys what the advertiser needs them to."
"Unauditable" sounds like a stretch. It's not great hygiene to insta-execute a shell script downloaded from the Internet, but this is not "unauditable" by any measure.
And I triple hate that we've helped develop the technology that powers it.
In hindsight, it was inevitable.
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
I think the point of all this is that there is no absolute scale of "offensiveness". Different societies have different values. Obviously, enough people found the Ukrainian flag easter egg offensive enough for the matter to have landed on LWN and the HN front page.
If you need help building a backend for it to be multiplayer, please email me and I'd love to team up ([email protected]), I already have something that would help.
What economic / political model would cause the society to prioritize this over adtech? It seems so unsettling that brilliant human minds are trying hard, every day, to figure out how to make it impossible to bypass watching ads on YouTube, instead of helping cure cancer.
When my surgeon charged $250,000 for my hand reconstruction surgery, how much of it did he personally pocket, and how much of that went towards that $500,000 debt vs. his brand new S-class Mercedes?
The ultimate shareholder value build.