Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends • Hacker News Board

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#21

Post by ricebowlz420 » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #3

This article, like many many others, dances between two contradictory narratives. On one hand, it's claimed that targeted advertising just doesn't work, and it's a bunch of pointless, flashy tech which advertisers are wasting their money on. I'm partly sympathetic to this view. But it is simultaneously claimed that targeted ads are so powerful that they are single-handedly responsible for every right-wing political v…

Good analysis - you should check out credder.com - you might like it because you clearly have some skill with breaking down articles

... see what I just did there...

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#22

Post by mirimir » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

satya71 wrote: post #6

knzhou wrote: post #3

This article, like many many others, dances between two contradictory narratives. On one hand, it's claimed that targeted advertising just doesn't work, and it's a bunch of pointless, flashy tech which advertisers are wasting their money on. I'm partly sympathetic to this view. But it is simultaneously claimed that targeted ads are so powerful that they are single-handedly responsible for every right-wing political v…

Both can be true simultaneously. Targeted ads work where they reinforce and expand on existing inclinations and beliefs. They don't work so well when you're trying to sell in general or raise awareness of your brand. So someone who was mildly inclined toward right-wind ideas can be made into a alt-right supporter with the right targeted messaging. But when I'm trying to convince someone to buy my expensive gizmo, tar…

This is it, I think.

There's a huge difference between propaganda that strengthens filter bubbles and ads for selling stuff to people.

But as other note, this is not just about one political group. For example, Obama bragged about his social media campaign, and Trump bragged about his.

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#23

Post by NeedMoreTea » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

the_narrator wrote: post #9

satya71 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both can be true simultaneously. Targeted ads work where they reinforce and expand on existing inclinations and beliefs. They don't work so well when you're trying to sell in general or raise awareness of your brand. So someone who was mildly inclined toward right-wind ideas can be made into a alt-right supporter with the right targeted messaging. But when I'm trying to convince someone to buy my expensive gizmo, tar…

I have seen right-wing brought up multiple times, how does the same not apply to the far left?

Guardian are UK based. The far left in the UK barely exist, or at least are spread so thin they barely matter. There's dozens (hundreds?) of fringe groups still, and sub-groups within Labour.

The right seem to have had their Internet act rather more together - whether the ERG wing of the Tories, UKIP, or the outright fascist Britain First. Or at least slightly less inclined to split into the People's Front of Judea, Judean People's Front, Popular Judean People's Front - membership of one, etc.

Maybe a better question is why the far left haven't been able to replicate what might seem pretty obvious for a fringe group? I suspect in other parts of Europe they are doing much better at it...

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#24

Post by knzhou » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #20

knzhou wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're perfectly correct. The advantage of social media, if it exists at all, is symmetric between right and left. The 2008 Obama campaign was universally celebrated in the press for its deft use of social media [0, 1, 2, 3, 4], which included data mining in the style of Cambridge Analytica but at several times the scale, and using that data to hyper-target its message. Strangely, at the time this was universally cal…

It might be somewhat collectively balanced, but I certainly wouldn't call it symmetric. People don't realize that the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica were essentially doing the exact same thing. CA just didn't have explicit permission. The bigger problem is that Facebook denied everyone else the same inside access that it proactively offered to the Obama campaign. Which is the only reason CA was doing it in th…

Indeed. That would be a good argument that social media, circa 2008, was biased towards the left, not against it.

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#25

Post by sanxiyn » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

fizx wrote: post #19

largespoon wrote: post #2

I wonder how targeted tracking adds value to businesses in ways other than advertising profits. A large portion of interet users block ads, so what good is the data?

My brother built a wedding photography business in ~2008. He filled out the entire first summer of bookings with $50 of highly targeted facebook ads (female, engaged, 200mi radius). The same ads today would be much more competitive, but there's a huge amount of leverage here.

Facebook ads were so underpriced for a while, you could get 10x ROI. Nowadays you get what you pay for.

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#26

Post by c13u » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #3

This article, like many many others, dances between two contradictory narratives. On one hand, it's claimed that targeted advertising just doesn't work, and it's a bunch of pointless, flashy tech which advertisers are wasting their money on. I'm partly sympathetic to this view. But it is simultaneously claimed that targeted ads are so powerful that they are single-handedly responsible for every right-wing political v…

> ...it is simultaneously claimed that targeted ads are so powerful that they are single-handedly responsible for every right-wing political victory in the past few years

Not surely so. There's the argument[0] that political misinformation is:

* Weak in high profile partisan races because pre-existing beliefs hardly change

* Strong when people don't have string pre-existing opinions, e.g. misinformation about voter ID laws causing people to stay home from the polls

I think targeting work best on people at the margins. There was also some good discussion this week on HN on the effectiveness of digital advertising[1]

[0] https://www.vox.com/2017/11/6/16504454/misinformation-fake-n...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465873

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#27

Post by Gibbon1 » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

satya71 wrote: post #6

knzhou wrote: post #3

This article, like many many others, dances between two contradictory narratives. On one hand, it's claimed that targeted advertising just doesn't work, and it's a bunch of pointless, flashy tech which advertisers are wasting their money on. I'm partly sympathetic to this view. But it is simultaneously claimed that targeted ads are so powerful that they are single-handedly responsible for every right-wing political v…

Both can be true simultaneously. Targeted ads work where they reinforce and expand on existing inclinations and beliefs. They don't work so well when you're trying to sell in general or raise awareness of your brand. So someone who was mildly inclined toward right-wind ideas can be made into a alt-right supporter with the right targeted messaging. But when I'm trying to convince someone to buy my expensive gizmo, tar…

If you're trying to sell towels a conversion rate of 1:1,000,000 is hopeless fail. If you're trying to goad some mentally ill asshole into shooting up a synagogue, 1:10,000,000 is worth it.

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#28

Post by beerandt » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #24

beerandt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be somewhat collectively balanced, but I certainly wouldn't call it symmetric. People don't realize that the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica were essentially doing the exact same thing. CA just didn't have explicit permission. The bigger problem is that Facebook denied everyone else the same inside access that it proactively offered to the Obama campaign. Which is the only reason CA was doing it in th…

Indeed. That would be a good argument that social media, circa 2008, was biased towards the left, not against it.

I think the companies are biased to the left, especially Facebook. The benefit the right sees is as ad-buying customers, or as users of the platform.

Which isn't anything the left arguably couldn't also do.

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#29

Post by umvi » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

Targeted ads are still so incredibly stupid. Like... I watch anime. So then I start getting targeted ads for more anime.

Sometimes I'm watching an anime, and then during the ad break I'll see an ad for the anime I am currently watching.

It would be like if you were watching Jeopardy, and then during the commercials all you saw were ads for Jeopardy... so moronic

Re: Targeted ads are one of the world's most destructive trends

#30

Post by NeedMoreTea » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #13

the_narrator wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen right-wing brought up multiple times, how does the same not apply to the far left?

You're perfectly correct. The advantage of social media, if it exists at all, is symmetric between right and left. The 2008 Obama campaign was universally celebrated in the press for its deft use of social media [0, 1, 2, 3, 4], which included data mining in the style of Cambridge Analytica but at several times the scale, and using that data to hyper-target its message. Strangely, at the time this was universally cal…

Obama and the Democratic Party are, by no stretch of the imagination, far-left.

I suspect whoever had used it first would have been celebrated at the time. Every new innovation usually reveals its problems only later. Targeted ads 15 years ago were touted as being able to ensure we'd have a healthy relationship with ads, and only get ads we desired. Didn't turn out like that, did it?

If Cambridge Analytica had come along 5 years earlier in the political cycle, the Republicans would have been lauded for finding a marvellous new technique to engage the electorate, and the Democrats caught the flak for breaking democracy. Give it a couple more elections and I imagine much of the developed world will have outlawed micro-targeted political ads.