Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising? • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by zepto » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #84

spodek wrote: post #18

The images of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... illustrate the difference in a different space. Personally, I found the difference greater and more lovely than I expected and support reducing advertising. Other cities are doing it. The parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wo…

I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising - ie. Google and Facebook, and the ad agencies which run ads on those platforms. Regardless, I'm not sure recognizable megacorps would suffer much. A Big Mac is a known quantity, and everyone recognizes the Golden Arches, whether you're in Seattle or Shanghai. It's the local gastrop…

Depends on whether you think Yelp is ‘targeted’ advertising.

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

#142

Post by lioeters » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

Obligatory Banksy quote:

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

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

#143

Post by zepto » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #85

jka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is targeted advertising needed for?

To get information to those that are interested in it. While some dislike any kind of advertisment, many (me included) don't mind having ads, as long as they're not too intrusive and actually useful.

“Interested” is Orwellian doublespeak.

What advertisers care about is who is susceptible or vulnerable to persuasion.

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

#144

Post by MrQuimico » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

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…

If you want voluntary targeted advertising, then read sites or sign up for newsletters that cover these topics. These sites can show you ads that are relevant for their audience, without having to track your activity.

Sites that are not niche specific (like newspapers) shouldn't try to microtarget each user. They lose control of the ads they show near their content, making them less relevant. I'm tired of reading news about the coronavirus crisis surrounded by Amazon's offers on some items I visited a month ago. I still think ads are better when they are somewhat related to the content you are reading, rather than to the user's past activity on other websites.

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

#145

Post by zepto » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

barnabee wrote: post #125

ddevault wrote: post #7

Why don't we just ban advertising?

100% this. Advertising is the new smoking, it's bad for us in ways we're only beginning to understand.

It’s a lot worse than smoking. It damages your mind, whereas smoking only damages your lungs.

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

#146

Post by dwild » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

Tarq0n wrote: post #118

haste410 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work for site like Facebook or Instagram or other sites where there is no clear relevant content to target?

There's been a lot of work in this area over the last few years, clustering and tagging text and video. Facebook even has an open source library for it called Starspace.

Can you be more precise to what you means? That sounds like targetting.

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

#147

Post by dwild » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #84

spodek wrote: post #18

The images of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... illustrate the difference in a different space. Personally, I found the difference greater and more lovely than I expected and support reducing advertising. Other cities are doing it. The parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wo…

I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising - ie. Google and Facebook, and the ad agencies which run ads on those platforms. Regardless, I'm not sure recognizable megacorps would suffer much. A Big Mac is a known quantity, and everyone recognizes the Golden Arches, whether you're in Seattle or Shanghai. It's the local gastrop…

> I think the parties that would suffer most would be the companies that have specialized in providing and generating targeted advertising

I don't think they would be hurt that much, they would still provide advertisement, just less. The small niche company is the one that will be hurt... they now will compete in every category which is going to be much more expensive than small niche categories.

If anything, it sound like remove targetting will make much more money for Google. The one paying higher CPM will increase the CPM for everyone instead of his niche.

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

#148

Post by dwild » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:45 PM UTC

spodek wrote: post #18

The images of Sao Paolo before and after banning billboards https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... illustrate the difference in a different space. Personally, I found the difference greater and more lovely than I expected and support reducing advertising. Other cities are doing it. The parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wo…

> TThe parties that would suffer most are shareholders of companies that advertise products most people probably wouldn't want without all the advertising -- Coca-Cola, Gatorade, McDonald's, fast fashion, etc, generally multinationals.

The example you give are all global, they can pay advertising in movies, in generic website, everywhere. They won't be hurt, by removing targeted advertisment, or billboard.

The one that will be hurt are the one that most person probably want but wouldn't know without advertising. My SO is in the escape room industry, at least 80% of people that come through her door has never done one. It took a long time to take off, because there was no escape room closeby, so not only we had to tell we existed to people, but also tell them WHAT it was. You can't achieve that just by existing.

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

#149

Post by RestlessMind » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

stoev wrote: post #129

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there aren't sites/publications that are niche enough. Female runners over 50? Interested in Italian food in Denver? Targeted ads are a response to the poor results from site/content specific ads

Sure, there are niche categories that would be hard to get. But for your two specific examples you could use those simple sets of criteria: 1. Target specific articles with advice for older runners in running publications. 2. Target Italian recipes in cooking websites only for users located in Denver. You don’t need to do those things manually, it can be automated. Sure, it might not deliver the scale that FB and Goo…

> 1. Target specific articles with advice for older runners in running publications.

Who reads running publications these days? Unless you meant online blogs etc, in which case:

> 2. Target Italian recipes in cooking websites only for users located in Denver.

That is targeted advertising, IIUC. You are targeting users based on their geolocation, which should be banned as per the article.

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

#150

Post by monadic2 » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

PatentlyDC123 wrote: post #104

monadic2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transacting without offering money as an exchange medium.

Wouldn't this cover bartering? I could also see someone trying to twist this definition to cover gift cards and other mediums that are not strictly "money." Such a skewed interpretation is why I think drafting such a bill would be difficult.

Is bartering for online services common?