151–160 of 362 posts
That reminded me of this speech by Jeff Bezos to Princeton: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/05/30/2010-baccalaureate... “Jeff, one day you’ll understand that it’s harder to be kind than clever.” It really had an impact on me.
Instagram is not a person. Don't ask it to be decent. Those ads are not your friends. Don't expect them to treat you like they care. You're not sharing your information with a human. You're sharing it with a business who is tuned to maximize profit. The ROI on dealing with still births for advertising is probably negative. They don't care about you. You've made the decision to let a business deep into your personal l…
I don't disagree with this, but this argument fails to acknowledge the responsibility of social media companies to communicate what information they gather about you and how they choose to use it. On both fronts, they're still entirely too opaque. It might not be a fair comparison, but I feel like this argument is the equivalent to smoking for 40 years without realizing that it causes cancer because the hypothetical…
While her situation is tragic, She's demonstrating a huge amount of entitlement and technically illiteracy. She's making assumptions that all of these studies from data science and usage of recommendation/personalization systems are for her benefit. They're not, she's not paying the bills on that. That's for someone to sell her something. She's entitled because she believes that her unusual/rare situation should be a…
1) Her situation isn't rare/unusual. Miscarriages happen all the time. 2) >She's making assumptions that all of these studies from data science and usage of recommendation/personalization systems are for her benefit. They're not, she's not paying the bills on that. That's for someone to sell her something. Advertising (at its best) is for the consumer's benefit. A consumer needs to make informed decisions about their…
They do, but they're not the event that the advertisers are looking for.
> Advertising
It's to get the word out about a business's products/serices to entice a financial reward for the business.
Unless she's paying the platform that is showing the ads, she doesn't get the right to dictate the platform's output. She is the product. I.e Youtube red (without ads) vs Youtube.
While her situation is tragic, She's demonstrating a huge amount of entitlement and technically illiteracy. She's making assumptions that all of these studies from data science and usage of recommendation/personalization systems are for her benefit. They're not, she's not paying the bills on that. That's for someone to sell her something. She's entitled because she believes that her unusual/rare situation should be a…
1) Her situation isn't rare/unusual. Miscarriages happen all the time. 2) >She's making assumptions that all of these studies from data science and usage of recommendation/personalization systems are for her benefit. They're not, she's not paying the bills on that. That's for someone to sell her something. Advertising (at its best) is for the consumer's benefit. A consumer needs to make informed decisions about their…
Miscarriages do happen all the time, as kerbalspacepro says. It could be a win-win for companies to realize this and put a bit of time into rebalancing their models. It just takes a little thoughtfulness, and thinking about this sort of thing would be an innovation that could be useful in many contexts. Many people "change state" and advertisers recognizing that change of state rapidly would help optimize their dollars too. See above discussions of people transitioning or deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're taking Joshua's quote out of context: The WOPR learns about futility in game theory, not anonymity through exclusion.
I think OP is just reapplying it to another context where it works equally as well.
I'm someone saddened that the discussion here focuses only on what the advertiser (/ tech companies) should have done and leaves out the aspect of how we have failed to bring the obvious solution to the harmed individual: Install an adblocker at the first sign of trouble. How come she was so morally obliged to watch any ads in the first place instead of engaging in basic self defense? Or if the answer is technologica…
She describes clicking "I don't want to see this ad" and "It's not relevant to me".
I felt immense pity for the mother in this scenario, and after reading the article I agreed that FB aught to have some sort of way to indicate that such advertisements are offensive and should not be shown to the user. Ideally, I'd like to see a paid tier that gets rid of advertising altogether. Then I read some of the comments here and on other sites. To put it bluntly, I don't understand the tone of entitlement peo…
No, I felt the same way. The platforms are just doing what they are programmed to do, its not meant to be offensive. The fact that it is offensive is not something a computer could detect, exactly, so in my mind the platforms have done nothing wrong.
No one (afaik) is saying Facebook should be boycotted or punished over this issue specifically, so intent is irrelevant. A woman was offended—unintentionally—and is expressing her feelings, in the hope the companies will make an intentional change.
I feel like I’m alone in asking this but does personal responsibility play no part in this? She starts by admitting that she voluntarily signaled to these platforms that she was pregnant. They are ad platforms. She then goes on to admit that she continued to go back on the platforms after and then blames them for showing ads she herself engaged with at one point! I don’t think anyone would ever wish someone grieving…
You aren't alone. I had the same thoughts. Why would she share that type of information on a social networking site to begin with? It's terrible what happened to her and her family, but this post basically reads "I put my foot in a fire. Fire, why did you burn my foot?"
I've been really interested in a 'digital agent' model for a while now. Some profile, and/or grand set of settings that apply to all my interactions online. I interface with way too many platforms online to keep track of, this can lead to unwanted and annoying targeting similar to (but obviously on a much lesser scale) to this mother. I recently bought a shaving kit for my future brother-in-law for Christmas, I looke…
You know things are broken when after you buy things you begin to get ads for the very thing you just bought. Now, you could forgive one ad network not knowing, but when you get served up ads by the people who know (have a record of the transaction) you bought something, you know something’s not working the way it should, optimally.
The ad networks don't care. They're just serving ads paid for by a bidder who very much has decided that you're the target audience. They win when the bidder keeps bidding for your attention.
The bidder, meanwhile, probably has some very good numbers delivered to them quarterly from their ad agency showing that there is a very strong correlation between how they are targeting their ads, and actual purchase intent, and low and behold, purchases! When the ad is delivered relative to your purchase is an afterthought, or perhaps, just not worth paying their adtech people to fix. (After all, adtech engineers are expensive, and whatever they're doing seems to be working, so why change?)
And, the agency who set up the campaign doesn't have any problem cashing the checks for their successful work.
I'm not saying it's not broken, I'm saying the incentive structure currently is not set up in a way that will ever change it.