Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#41

Post by Chaebixi »

api wrote: post #8
mattnewton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way it used to work: you show the same ads to almost everyone based on the content, not the people. Not that I think advertisers will go for it.

That's considered "spray and pray" today. Today advertisers want data, data, data, and micro-targeting is everything. The entire advertising industry has become something akin to a private signals intelligence agency.

> That's considered "spray and pray" today. Today advertisers want data, data, data, and micro-targeting is everything.

And even with all that, the most of the targeted ads aren't any more compelling than content-based "spray and pay."

IMHO, targeted ads are pointless unless they're a targeted to a search query.

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#42

Post by aero142 »

hackuser wrote: post #33
aero142 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only half the argument, though. Yes, companies charge as much as possible, but prices go down when a competitor can offer a comparable good at a lower price. Some markets clearly have features that make competition harder.

Agreed, but how do you see that applying in this situation? Privacy regulations apply either to all competitors or none.

I think both sides just argue past each other. Democrats promote government regulation as the solution without discussing the problems. Heavy regulation often leads to stagnation and lack of innovation. You also have to deal with regulatory capture since your politicians now have huge influence and are worth bribing.

Republicans argue for "free-market solutions" which are actually government granted or encouraged monopolies where no competition exists.

There lots of examples of free market capitalism making the world a better place and markets failing as well. There are examples government run services providing great consistent services and there are examples of government bureaucracies soaking up budget and graft in their own or lobbyists interest.

Which tool do you think will work best in this situation and why? How do you plan to deal with the inherent problems of government involvement in ISP regulation?

I'm just tired of "free market solves all" vs "corporation are evil, government is universal solution". We learn nothing and convince no one.

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#43

Post by omginternets »

twoodfin wrote: post #40
mundo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I hear someone argue for the efficiencies of privatization, I think of my water utility emulating mobile carriers and billing me for "Anytime gallons" and "Nighttime gallons" and "Weekend gallons".

Instead, if you're in a drought-prone area, you get water bans.

... which is perfectly reasonable. What's your point?

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#45

Post by dpc_pw »

mundo wrote: post #32
prklmn wrote: post #28

Them wanting people to believe that this will lower the cost of internet service is laughable. Have TV ads lowered the cost of cable? We need to think of the internet as a public utility. How absurd would it be if every time you used water in your home, you heard an advertisement playing from a speaker in the faucet.

Every time I hear someone argue for the efficiencies of privatization, I think of my water utility emulating mobile carriers and billing me for "Anytime gallons" and "Nighttime gallons" and "Weekend gallons".

This is quite popular in Poland for electricity. It makes a lot of economic sense.

Same with Internet. Back in the days I had a plan like that, where Internet would be faster and wouldn't count towards your quota if used in the night. All the heavy downloads would be scheduled to run overnight

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#46

Post by Chaebixi »

ouid wrote: post #26
Chaebixi wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about ads with privacy? They are not mutually exclusive. Yeah, but internet advertising fetishizes "personalization" and quantitative metrics, which are predicated on invasions of privacy. Advertisers could put those toys down, and go back to more traditional, privacy-preserving advertising, but I don't think they have the maturity and willpower to do so on their own.

you're asserting that the reason why advertising organizations who are competing to deliver the most valuable advertising product to their clients end up invading people's privacy is a lack of maturity and willpower? You're insane if you believe that this problem is not systemic.

I was talking collectively about the ad-men and the companies hiring them. And yes, I think the group lacks the maturity and willpower to act ethically in the face of competing pressures.

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#47

Post by elipsey »

omginternets wrote: post #43
twoodfin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead, if you're in a drought-prone area, you get water bans.

... which is perfectly reasonable. What's your point?

I think his point is that price economics would allow you to at least have _some_ water if you wanted it bad enough to pay more.

EDIT: Perhaps more importantly, dynamic priceing could be more efficient than a regime in which you can use huge amounts of water at a low fixed cost, and then suddenly none when it runs out.

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#48

Post by awqrre »

aero142 wrote: post #31
hackuser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Them wanting people to believe that this will lower the cost of internet service is laughable. Have TV ads lowered the cost of cable? It's a very important point; this false argument is often used. In truth, in the marketplace, goods are not priced at 'cost-plus'; i.e., they aren't priced by taking the cost to the vendor and adding a profit margin. Goods are priced at the point that will maximize profit for the ven…

This is only half the argument, though. Yes, companies charge as much as possible, but prices go down when a competitor can offer a comparable good at a lower price. Some markets clearly have features that make competition harder.

What competition in the ISP space?

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#49

Post by tomjen3 »

Oh my God, that is low.

And quite frankly, for a of people, they're probably right. Especially because people don't understand what they are giving up, because it somehow has to do with "computers" and are therefore different from real life.

If, however you were to explain to a person, that this would be the same as his landlord knowing every single step he took in his home, when he took that step, what he was listening to when he took the step, who he was taking the step with, exactly how he looked when he took the step and use it to shoe advertising, he would cry foul and he would understand that this was not a small thing.

Re: Comcast-Funded Civil Rights Groups Claim Low-Income People Want Ads Over Privacy

#50

Post by mikeash »

prklmn wrote: post #28

Them wanting people to believe that this will lower the cost of internet service is laughable. Have TV ads lowered the cost of cable? We need to think of the internet as a public utility. How absurd would it be if every time you used water in your home, you heard an advertisement playing from a speaker in the faucet.

Even if it did lower the price of the service, those advertisements aren't going to be purchased unless there's profit in it, and there isn't going to be profit in it unless they convince the people exposed to it to spend money on stupid crap.

Those poor people will pay one way or another. Given the indirectness and inefficiency involved in the advertising approach, I wager they'll pay more that way. And it'll be less fair: people with less willpower will pay more.

Advertising makes sense when direct payment is impractical. Broadcast TV is the classic example. It's really hard to charge money for it, so ads let you indirectly collect money from your viewers. On the internet, paywalls are practical technologically, but tend to add too much friction, so we get ads instead. But there's no reason for it here.

Post reply on HN