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

181–188 of 188 posts

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

#181

Post by earthboundkid »

jariel wrote: post #174
earthboundkid wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is what I know. I know if I open a newspaper, I see ads for businesses, both local and national. If I go to the newspaper’s website, I see ads for one weird trick, the same ads on every site and in every city, and essentially no meaningful local content. Yes, things on Facebook are different, but Facebook is not a publisher, it’s a parasite, so who cares?

1) Banner ads on websites are often targeted via networks, often Google. 2) Those 'stupid ads' are often targeted, and they make money, sadly. 3) You're probably not accounting for the majority of ads you see. If you literally tracked/recorded every ad, you might see a different picture. 4) Many ads are not very well targeted, yes, and that's why you see irrelevance. Well-targeted ads are generally more relevant (som…

1 and 2 are not a defense. That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them.

3 is you're telling me not to believe my eyes. I'm sorry, there are some things that are so dumb you have to be very smart to trick yourself into believing them. You don't need a sophisticated statistical analysis to know what kind of advertisements you see where.

4 is circular reasoning. "Targeted ads are better than non-targeted, so if (per 1 and 2) I've already conceded that many targeted ads are garbage, I need to hypothesize (3) that the non-targeted ads are somehow worse even against the evidence of sense."

5: Google and Facebook are separate entities and need separate explanations. Facebook is a pure parasite. It does nothing for publishers except drive them traffic (which is in itself, a cost center, not a profit center). Publishers need to figure out how to convert traffic into profit. If we're talking about publishing, that requires the ads to be on their site, which means Google. But Google is screwing the publishers too because they can track and deliver eyeballs from anywhere.

It's just an obviously sick ecosystem. People have been doing advertising supported publishing since the 19th century, and it was fine until ten minutes ago, when suddenly tracking was possible. Coincidentally, ad supported publishing collapsed at the same time that tracking became possible. Is this really a coincidence? You've got to be pretty clever to convince yourself that it is…

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

#182

Post by jariel »

earthboundkid wrote: post #181
jariel wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Banner ads on websites are often targeted via networks, often Google. 2) Those 'stupid ads' are often targeted, and they make money, sadly. 3) You're probably not accounting for the majority of ads you see. If you literally tracked/recorded every ad, you might see a different picture. 4) Many ads are not very well targeted, yes, and that's why you see irrelevance. Well-targeted ads are generally more relevant (som…

1 and 2 are not a defense. That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them. 3 is you're telling me not to believe my eyes. I'm sorry, there are some things that are so dumb you have to be very smart to trick yourself into believing them. You don't need a sophisticated statistical analysis to know what kind of advertisements you see where. 4 is circular reasoning. "Targeted ads are better than non-…

1) I don't need to 'defend' the system. Targetting works.

1b) "That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them."

This is demonstrably false, unfortunately.

The ads power Facebook, Google, much of Entertainment. Almost everywhere you see an ad - that place would disappear without that ad.

So a 'future without ads' is essentially a future without any of those things - and you and anyone else can stop using those things right now, and thereby avoid both the ads and the service.

People chose the crappy ads, with the service, instead of the alternative: nothing.

Granted, there could be more paywalls, but there wouldn't be enough 'pay' to keep the services alive.

2) Yes, I'm 100% telling you that I don't believe your self-assessment of the kinds of ads you see overall. I think most people have no idea of the true inventory they are witnesses, rather, they remember only the tiny fragment that sticks out.

'Your evidence of sense' - is telling you that 'ads are a waste' when 'evidence of a $100B economy' and 'science' is definitely telling you that ads are effective. Even untargeted, or crudely targetted.

3) I don't think it's circular reasoning to point out that many ads are not targeted. You're missing the underlying point - that not all ads land on target, irrespective of how sophisticated the targetting in.

That inefficiency is accounted for in the system.

FYI - as part of 'item #2' not only are you going to be unaware of how many and which ads you saw, you're also going to be completely unaware of their effect on your behavior in most cases.

BMW has been advertising to you since the moment you could recognize their logo, a decade before you could even consider buying a car. That programming 'adds up' to something, no pun intended.

5) Your view of Facebook as a 'parasite' is your own, it's not objective - they have a Billion people who like using it just fine. You're also confusing the collapse of print and the complete commoditization of information, with ads.

I'm going to assume that you've never placed an ad of any kind, and have no exposure to the industry. I'd encourage trying it, even by spending $50 on FB or Google perhaps trying to garner interest in your favorite Open Source Project. You'll learn a lot in the process.

The irony of your ire ... is that better-targeted ads are generally better for everyone - both consumer and advertiser. They are the least annoying and most informative. Though we don't like the invasion of our privacy, the 'targetting' part is really good.

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

#183

Post by SifJar »

libertine wrote: post #98
SifJar wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A company that sells vegan supplements that places advertising in the POS (Point of Sale) is targeted advertising - why should we ban something that has the consent of everyone involved? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is the consumer also consenting?

Unless they have no other choice to buy from, they enter the shop by their own terms and can leave any time. Unless you're trying to say that the consumer didn't consent to have messages being displayed around him, and this is just once again too broad... the solution would be any media (or for the sake of simplicity, any surface) would need to be plain white with no text. Walls, shelves, windows, clothing of staff,…

I think when entering a store, it is reasonable to assume that there will be messages about the products carried in the store. I think it is much less reasonable to assume that there will be messages about products not carried in the store that "may" be relevant to customers there.

Seems like quite a leap to me to suggest that consent to see the later type of message is implied by mere presence in the store; maybe this is exactly the point you are making, but I think by extension any advertisement seen anywhere is "consented" to by nature of being in the place (physical or virtual) where the advertisement is?

On a side note, this seems more like "contextual advertising" rather than "targeted advertising"?

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

#184

Post by Quanttek »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #126
Tarq0n wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the point is that Facebook is showing you ads based on your surfing behaviour outside Facebook - not the content you view on Facebook. If you use facebook purely for posting and viewing family baby photos, but view websites about tractors, you'll probably see ads on facebook from tractor related companies. Starspace is used by FB to tag the sites that report that you've visited them to facebook. So they can targe…

I think the point is that FB could change to a contextual model. E.g. after seeing a post of a news article by Tractor Daily you would see an ad for a new John Deere.

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

#185

Post by earthboundkid »

jariel wrote: post #182
earthboundkid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 and 2 are not a defense. That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them. 3 is you're telling me not to believe my eyes. I'm sorry, there are some things that are so dumb you have to be very smart to trick yourself into believing them. You don't need a sophisticated statistical analysis to know what kind of advertisements you see where. 4 is circular reasoning. "Targeted ads are better than non-…

1) I don't need to 'defend' the system. Targetting works. 1b) "That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them." This is demonstrably false, unfortunately. The ads power Facebook, Google, much of Entertainment. Almost everywhere you see an ad - that place would disappear without that ad. So a 'future without ads' is essentially a future without any of those things - and you and anyone else can sto…

> This is demonstrably false, unfortunately.

You can't just wish away all of advertising before 2005. It wasn't perfect, but it was fine. Publishing has been collapsing since then and the reasons aren't confusing.

Yes, _as an advertiser_, having targeting is great. But as a mining company, dumping waste water in the river is great. Who cares? It matters what effect your actions have on the system as a whole.

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

#186

Post by earthboundkid »

jariel wrote: post #182
earthboundkid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 and 2 are not a defense. That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them. 3 is you're telling me not to believe my eyes. I'm sorry, there are some things that are so dumb you have to be very smart to trick yourself into believing them. You don't need a sophisticated statistical analysis to know what kind of advertisements you see where. 4 is circular reasoning. "Targeted ads are better than non-…

1) I don't need to 'defend' the system. Targetting works. 1b) "That's a garbage ecosystem and we would all be happier without them." This is demonstrably false, unfortunately. The ads power Facebook, Google, much of Entertainment. Almost everywhere you see an ad - that place would disappear without that ad. So a 'future without ads' is essentially a future without any of those things - and you and anyone else can sto…

Completely different tact here: I want you to think about people’s favorite ads. Many people have consciously chosen favorite ads—like Budweiser commercials or some of the Geico series or Flo from Progressive Insurance or the entire joke that the ads are better than the Super Bowl or “ MailKimp” from Serial or a million other things. People line their dorm rooms with vodka ads from magazines or Apple print ads. Many more things are ads but not consciously perceived as ads, like the Hollywood sign or Instagram influencers, or Rolex watches, or in your example the BMW logo.

What do people’s favorite ads all have in common? No one likes targeted ads. At best, people like when you do a search and get geographically relevant results. But that’s not even tracking, just IP location. Everyone loves ads but no one likes targeted ads.

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

#187

Post by libertine »

SifJar wrote: post #183
libertine wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they have no other choice to buy from, they enter the shop by their own terms and can leave any time. Unless you're trying to say that the consumer didn't consent to have messages being displayed around him, and this is just once again too broad... the solution would be any media (or for the sake of simplicity, any surface) would need to be plain white with no text. Walls, shelves, windows, clothing of staff,…

I think when entering a store, it is reasonable to assume that there will be messages about the products carried in the store. I think it is much less reasonable to assume that there will be messages about products not carried in the store that "may" be relevant to customers there. Seems like quite a leap to me to suggest that consent to see the later type of message is implied by mere presence in the store; maybe th…

Sorry, but I missed your reply.

Usually POS Advertising is indeed for products within the store, you just give an incentive to have your product being supported with visual display. Sometimes on those displays you have product lines ups, or products soon to be released - so those don't necessarily have to be available in store. I'm sure you've seen "Coming Soon"/"Pre-Order" signs.

Advertising being displayed only needs the consentment of the owners of the media, and to follow all the legal terms of the country where it's being displayed. Because it's a message, and you only read/acknowledge a message if you want to, that's why consent on the on the part of the consumer for display doesn't seem right.

>his seems more like "contextual advertising" rather than "targeted advertising"

This is a matter of semantics, because for me contextual placement is a form of targeting. You target by context, and that was the premise of my first reply - they're quite broad terms to be generalized.

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

#188

Post by libertine »

dfxm12 wrote: post #99
dx034 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But, you can't have targeted ads without some database out there tracking everything you do. A database that is ostensibly used to get information to you that you might find interesting, but in reality has been used for much worse, according to the article: proliferation of hateful and false content on social media & political manipulation, among others. This data is also an valuable target for ID thieves. The ads th…

You had targeted advertising before the internet, it's simply less targeted and less granular, with more wastage.

A quick example: if you wanted to reach health care works, or more precisely doctors, you'd advertising on magazines for health care professionals. Most of which were subscribed (name, birthday, profession, address, etc) - so you had already some data for some targeting.

> in reality has been used for much worse, according to the article: proliferation of hateful and false content on social media & political manipulation, among others.

This is where advertising is getting mixed with propaganda - those are very different things and the only cross section is that they are messages that use text, audio, images, video - in others words - they are distributed with audiovisual media. They have different legal obligations (depending on the country).

What is lacking is regulation and fines for abuse of propaganda. The problem is that the sheer volume of content being produced is hard to regulate.

Post reply on HN