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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

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

#41

Post by elorant »

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?

One way is through re-targetting. You visit an e-commerce site looking for a pair of shoes. You browse for a while but nothing seems interesting so you leave. The site then targets you through Facebook with tailor made ads and probably limited time discounts. They can track you through Facebook pixel. It works like a charm because the need to buy the product never went away.

A large portion of users do indeed block ads, but most don't. The higher blocking percentage I've seen is in the region of 30%-35% (it's in Greece I think).

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

#42

Post by m463 »

umvi wrote: post #29

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

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

This is a different sort of targeting. This is targeting the advertising dollars of the advertiser. "Look you advertised for Jeopardy and now he's watching Jeopardy, what a great ROI"

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

#43

Post by xcavier »

rudyfink wrote: post #34

I keep thinking about the reasoning of Twitter's Jack Dorsey for banning political ads--that the technology was too dangerous for use in politics: "While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions. Internet political ads present entirely new challenge…

I don’t think we can address the issue of the role of (any) technology without also factoring in the (multifaceted) issue of intent...

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

#44

Post by NeedMoreTea »

knzhou wrote: post #40
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that naive. :p Of course it wouldn't be the NYT or Guardian reporting were the cycle at the opposite peak. It would be the Telegraph or I guess the US equivalent would be WaPo? Partisan newspapers aren't going to forget their party inclinations, though they all have a fine track record attempting to borrow and reform any good ideas that originate on the other side of the fence.

Are you British by any chance? The UK press really is different from the US, in that you guys have newspapers with a variety of slants, from left to right, which most everyone is aware of. But in the US, the common perception is that there is a “neutral” mainstream press (NYT, WaPo, etc.). However, these papers would never ever publish anything approaching admiration for a Republican campaign.

Yes I am a Brit. From my UK perspective NYT feels distinctly Democrat leaning rather than neutral with the odd surprise opinion piece. I don't think I've ever felt them independent or neutral. WaPo somewhere between Democrat and Republican - I've never quite been sure if that's them simply unsure which horse they want to ride. Though I admit I read rather less from WaPo, and am not sure of the US Republican equivalent of The NYT, equivalent to the UK Torygraph (though they're not really that since their last change of ownership).

What I do notice distinctly, with both those and probably all US media to some extent is the degree they come onside around "national issues" and military action, often becoming distinctly non-neutral, even when it against their perceived political alignment. A tendency that is far less pronounced in the UK papers - though that is increasing.

UK media is often quite happy to lay the boot into the sitting government, even if it is "their own". Neutrality usually gets bought and made partisan (and crap) - Murdoch and Times, Lebedev and Independent. FT is probably the closest we have left, and their buyer haven't yet ruined it.

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

#45

Post by nloladze »

Advertising is the rot of late-stage capitalism.

Here's a question? Why am I not being paid to witness or watch your advertisements? Why don't I get a portion of the profits, regardless of the platform? I'm actually all for targeted ads; I shouldn't be getting alzheimer medication ads at 27 or diabetic medication ads when I'm not at risk. But hey, a new video game or movie ad? Sign me up.

I think blockchain will be the revolution to this nauseating ad-nonsensical world we live in. Already the Brave browser is trying to implement this (with admitted failure so far, but they're trying) and I see future platforms adopting this. The number of ads in Youtube have skyrocketed and I know most of the profits do not go to the content makers. I'm all for advertising but I want a fairer share of the pie for content makers, myself and more targeted information.

Where and how this data should reside, this digital fingerprint should reside is problematic. I don't trust any corporate or financial database as the experian hack has shown. Still, we should be asking these questions and continuing this dialogue. No more nonsensical ads, a fairer partition of the pie distributed and less ads, but more quality ads.

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

#47

Post by senectus1 »

The thing is, targeted adverts work based on the information you put into it.

If you put garbage in you'll get garbage adverts come out of it.

The adverts you get tell you a lot about yourself, the prominent adverts the the average US citizen gets should tell you a lot about the average US citizen...

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

#48

Post by ignoramous »

knzhou wrote: post #14
ignoramous wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand, it's claimed that targeted advertising just doesn't work ~snip But 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... It is important to distinguish different kinds of ad campaigns here: The former qualifies as product/brand advertisement, whilst the latter is, in fact, propaganda .

And so why is the former consistently portrayed as useless, while the other (targeted in precisely the same way, in fact probably less accurately) is portrayed as literal mind control?

Both forms are literal mind control, but one is more devastating than the other due to the consequences that follow.

The point is, data collection at such scale is unprecedented. And what we do know from history for sure is such dragnets tend to get abused by the ones who have access to it (propaganda is one such form of abuse and hence the outcry). Unforunately, there are no philosopher kings around anymore to trust with global scale surveillance.

This can only end one way: Disaster. It is a matter of when and not if.

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

#49

Post by satya71 »

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?

It probably does, but the far left is not so big and rabidly destructive at the present time, at least from the available evidence. That might change, of course.
Post reply on HN