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

Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 188 posts

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#61

Post by gridlockd »

Retric wrote: post #44
icedchai wrote: post #36

I'd argue that targeted advertising is actually a benefit to consumers and businesses a like. Consumers get ads for things they might actually buy, businesses waste less advertising spend.

Consumers don’t magically get more money to spend so as long as everyone has access it’s equally effective at scale. The only real difference is it’s ability to shift where advertising dollars are spent.

The real difference is that only targeted ads pay so much better that they can sustain a wealth of free products.

That effectively puts advertising dollars into the pockets of consumers who get services for free that they otherwise would have to pay for.

The only companies that are going to be pissing away money on untargeted ads have multinational brands that barely need advertising in the first place.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#62

Post by qwerty456127 »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #25

I'd add nuance to this: Ban _involuntarily_ targeted advertising. I am 100% ok with Google, Facebook etc. knowing that I live in Oxfordshire, UK; that I love cycling; that I play the church organ. That's who I am. If they want to target cycling, classical music, and local ads at me based on this information, that's great. I would happily log onto these sites and click checkboxes based on this (or do it via browser se…

Targeted advertising is not the problem. The problem is it motivates them to collect too much data about you. And once they have it they can misuse it or give it (voluntarily or not) to someone else. There already have been cases when Google reported an innocent man to the police so he was put in prison.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#63

Post by rcxdude »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #29
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #25

I'd add nuance to this: Ban _involuntarily_ targeted advertising. I am 100% ok with Google, Facebook etc. knowing that I live in Oxfordshire, UK; that I love cycling; that I play the church organ. That's who I am. If they want to target cycling, classical music, and local ads at me based on this information, that's great. I would happily log onto these sites and click checkboxes based on this (or do it via browser se…

these questions are in earnest, not meant as a put-down of your position. how would you draw a line between what's okay to collect and what isn't? do you think a line could be drawn that would work for most people? would sites offer different levels of invasive tracking, and the user opts-in as far as they want? what incentive would users have to opt-in at all?

I think the line drawn would be easy: they cannot collect the data themselves, they can only use what you fill in on a form they present. Then the line is basically whatever you feel comfortable telling them, knowing it will be used for advertising. The incentive would be the standard reason ad companies give for targeted ads: given there are going to be ads, people would generally prefer they be relevant.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#64

Post by throwaway5466 »

Mirioron wrote: post #58
indigochill wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based. In my eyes, this would be a win. Journalism ideally should serve the readers. Aligning the business model (patronage/subscription-only) with the ideal seems like a good thing in the long run. Journalism (including but not limited to print) is filled with essentially noise that wouldn't be economically viable if the publishers had to justify the value…

It also means that people would have a lot less access to information about what's going on. I wouldn't subscribe to a single newspaper or magazine if it cost me money. I would guess that a lot of the people I know would do the same. Knowing more about the world has been interesting and it probably has benefited my view of the world, but it hasn't given me anything tangible or anything I could point to. If anything i…

We're already saturated with information. Even if 99% less filtered through paywalls that'd be more than enough to satiate anyone's needs.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#65

Post by Mirioron »

throwaway5466 wrote: post #27
PopeDotNinja wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that would be possible.

It's very simple actually. No more sponsors, no more covering every square meter of public space with brands, no more commercials on TV, no more ads on websites. People will have to find other ways to make money, no one's entitled to a business model.

So, does that mean everything has to be packaged in the same grey form factor as to not advertise their product? You walk around a city and see lots of Coca-Cola branding on the bottles people carry around. That's also advertising.

If you don't ban this, then whomever can pay the most at stores for product space would take over the market. Actually, that would likely happen even if you remove labels since people will be picking essentially at random.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#66

Post by dx87 »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #29
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #25

I'd add nuance to this: Ban _involuntarily_ targeted advertising. I am 100% ok with Google, Facebook etc. knowing that I live in Oxfordshire, UK; that I love cycling; that I play the church organ. That's who I am. If they want to target cycling, classical music, and local ads at me based on this information, that's great. I would happily log onto these sites and click checkboxes based on this (or do it via browser se…

these questions are in earnest, not meant as a put-down of your position. how would you draw a line between what's okay to collect and what isn't? do you think a line could be drawn that would work for most people? would sites offer different levels of invasive tracking, and the user opts-in as far as they want? what incentive would users have to opt-in at all?

I don't know about the rest, but for incentive to opt-in, I could see it as a way to keep up to date on new products. I'm starting to get into woodworking, and I've voluntarily signed up for advertisement emails from some retailers because I want to know when something I need goes on sale, or when a new product comes out that would be useful. If I could pick which advertisements I'm targeted with, I'd be happy to turn off my adblocker, but since the current option is either block all ads or have pervasive tracking for targeted ads chosen by an ML algorithm, I choose no ads.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#67

Post by woodrowbarlow »

avalys wrote: post #55
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let me make a point about why i see one type of targeting as benign and the other (which i suppose could be called 'collaborative targeted marketing', because it involves sharing or aggregating data from multiple sources) as dangerous. if i subscribe to a magazine about fishing and it includes an advertisement about some new fishing lure, well... it's obvious why the fishing magazine might think i'm into fishing. but…

Do you think it should be legal for health insurers to ask you about your dangerous hobbies, and charge you more? If so, are you really just upset about the idea of not being able to easily lie to them? If not, why do you think other policyholders should pay more to cover your risky hobbies?

no, i'm worried about health insurance providers drawing incomplete conclusions and making inaccurate assumptions about my hobbies based on my internet browsing habits alone.

in reality, at least in the US, they wouldn't tell you the details of how they arrived at that quote. i only spelled it out in my comment to make my point (my example was also an extreme and oversimplified one). in reality, i would call, they would give me a number that got spit out from a black box, and then i would need to either accept it or keep shopping around with other black boxes.

it's not just about health insurance, of course. it's a more general concern about how my internet browsing habits are affecting or will affect other arenas of my life.

i should never have to say to myself "hmm. this webpage offers legal content with information that interests me, but maybe i shouldn't view it because it might negatively affect my shadow profiles which are used to gatekeep my access to certain elements of my society.". i'm not saying we're there now, but as others have said, this type of data collection and sharing at this scale is fairly new, and it has the potential to go in that direction. (and has already made steps in that direction.)

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#68

Post by rcxdude »

slipheen wrote: post #30
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #25

I'd add nuance to this: Ban _involuntarily_ targeted advertising. I am 100% ok with Google, Facebook etc. knowing that I live in Oxfordshire, UK; that I love cycling; that I play the church organ. That's who I am. If they want to target cycling, classical music, and local ads at me based on this information, that's great. I would happily log onto these sites and click checkboxes based on this (or do it via browser se…

I don't think this will work well. If you give them that leeway, they'll claim everything is voluntary. "Oh, you can go into [random place in settings that changes every week] and disable each one of your anxieties. It will remain disabled for 72 hours"

I think the point is no data collection: only targeting based on stuff you explicitly enter on a clearly indicated form.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#69

Post by amelius »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #25

I'd add nuance to this: Ban _involuntarily_ targeted advertising. I am 100% ok with Google, Facebook etc. knowing that I live in Oxfordshire, UK; that I love cycling; that I play the church organ. That's who I am. If they want to target cycling, classical music, and local ads at me based on this information, that's great. I would happily log onto these sites and click checkboxes based on this (or do it via browser se…

Why not both

1. ban targeted advertising as it exists now

2. if the user thinks they are missing out on recommendations or personalized deals, they can visit a website, enter their personal details, and the website will respond with ads.

We can really have it both ways.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#70

Post by helsinkiandrew »

A few years ago I created an online business for serious cyclists and runners. Targeted Facebook ads enabled me to find customers for a few pennies each - I don't think I could have found customers any other way (apart from the trying to get 'free' ads via blogs/news/viral tweets etc).

Targeted ads are the only way that small, new, local, or just poor companies can do advertising.

It's a bit scary seeing what sites show facebook you've been to: https://www.facebook.com/off_facebook_activity/ But if this is the price to pay to see quality ads within FB then so be it.

What I think is wrong, is then for facebook (or other apps) to sell, or leak that data in enough detail to match to our identity where it can be used for other purposes.

Post reply on HN