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

We need legal controls on web advertising

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 171 posts

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#31

Post by IvanK_net »

h1fra wrote: post #14

It always bother me that ads on tv/paper/radio are highly controlled, regulated (at least in France), with maximum time and restricted content. But ads in internet are just wild! You can have 1 minute of ads for less than 10 minutes of content, plus all the banners, sponsored content etc... I wish the Europe would regulate this and impose a maximum exposition time for ads, like we have for tv. (e.g: in France 6-9 min…

You are complaining about "1 minute of ads for less than 10 minutes of content", and advocating "9 minutes of ads per hour in average".

But the first case is less ads than the second case.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#32

Post by mwexler »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #19
tomjen3 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would end up stalling the development of new products. I can't invent and sell an 800 usd massage chair if people assume they cost 5000 usd and so don't even go looking for them. I can't start a "we are cheaper than wallmart" discount business without advertising this fact. You need advertisements, or something like that, to encourage new products and price competition. You do not need tracking for any reason sin…

There is plenty of price comparison websites that one can use right now that allow one to search for a specific product and compare price offers. One would search for a massage chair on there and find that some are cheaper than others and read the reviews to make an educated guess about whether the extra price is worth it.

So, still ads but different name. These price engines (every one I've seen) are all affiliate hubs; they list only products that pay for the click. Any reviews on such sites are biased in similar ways to the gaming in reviews in major sites like Amazon.

Now, one could say, "so what? Most folks know that, useful info still, and it's better than ads!". But is it? At least the ad is an overt block of color, but affiliate links are hidden behind redirects and tiny disclaimers (in the few regions that require disclosure).

It's fine (and easy) to complain about display ads or video ads, but there's a lot more. Product brand shown or mentioned in tv or movie:ad. Movie trailers: yep, ad. Public media mentioning a sponsor: ad. That tiktok or insta person who always has branded product in the frame? ad.

In fact, most product discovery comes from ads. Is there another way? Probably, but ads have worked better than any other approach for so long, we haven't beaten it yet. I hope we do, but til then, for every 100 ads I despise, I'm still happy I found that one thing I actually liked. Can't say that defends all ads, but it gives me hope that we can find a good middle spot.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#33

Post by lordnacho »

If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market?

Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find many many women attracted to them") and just putting it there suggestively, for some as yet undescribed but working cognitive bias to do its magic.

Some advertisers even make a joke out of it, eg the Lynx ads where the dude is thronged by a huge horde of women. It's a cliché, for a good reason.

I suppose most people will just say you have free will and it's your own fault for thinking what was suggested, but I sense this is more of a grey zone than most people are willing to admit. How can the free market work if everyone is so easily affected by suggestion?

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#34

Post by IvanK_net »

jakubp wrote: post #3
notRobot wrote: post #2

I wonder, how would the world be different if a major government was to completely ban user tracking? Ad companies would be forced to use contextual advertising. How would that play out?

I had a different idea, which was that governments of the future could ban advertising altogether. I know it's a... stretch, but imagine this: - you can't put billboards in the city - you can't place any images, text, etc. banners anywhere (except for tightly controlled, single-design descriptions of businesses in buildings, decided by each municipality like it's already done in some cities to maintain consistent loo…

I wish you could think a bit before writing such thing.

How do you decide what is an ad and what is not an ad? What if I tell my friend, that my new TV is really good? What if I tell it to 10 of my friends? What if I send an email to everyone I know, saying, that my new TV is great?

Would you investigate, if the TV manufacturer paid me or not? How exactly would you do it? Or did they gave me a discount on the TV?

I wish you could see, that you can not ban advertising, without banning free speech.

It would be also great to ban lying in media, right?

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#35

Post by baq »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #18

> It's kind of a tech company too, but in a good-enough sort of way rather than the "hey, we invented the transistor" sort of way. Really? PageRank is not an invention like the transistor?

not sure if you're trolling but yeah, it isn't. algorithms are discovered. inventions require physical objects, so all software patents end up being 'method and apparatus'.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#36

Post by ancymon »

notRobot wrote: post #2

I wonder, how would the world be different if a major government was to completely ban user tracking? Ad companies would be forced to use contextual advertising. How would that play out?

I think one of the reasons for user tracking is fraud detection. The moment you get rid off it, nobody would be willing to "risk" advertising on smaller, unknown websites. So maybe such ban would make monetization for small publishers much harder.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#37

Post by Chris2048 »

ricardo81 wrote: post #22
h1fra wrote: post #14

It always bother me that ads on tv/paper/radio are highly controlled, regulated (at least in France), with maximum time and restricted content. But ads in internet are just wild! You can have 1 minute of ads for less than 10 minutes of content, plus all the banners, sponsored content etc... I wish the Europe would regulate this and impose a maximum exposition time for ads, like we have for tv. (e.g: in France 6-9 min…

It seems to me anecdotally as a free YouTube user that the number of ads I see on there have been cranked up. As often as once every 3 minutes. I remind myself that I'm not paying anything for their hosting and serving of the video, but it still grinds... particularly so when it's the likes of BBC content which as a UK license payer, has already been paid for and is being monetised on there.

The problem is when they start messing with content. Like content-blocking popups during the video with tiny "close" buttons.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#38

Post by jasode »

lordnacho wrote: post #33

If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find m…

>humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? [...] How can the free market work if everyone is so easily affected by suggestion?

I'm (genuinely) surprised that someone with your financial background knowledge would write those sentences about "free market".

I think you already know that the "free" in "free market" means free (as practically possible) from government controls. (The first sentence in wikipedia.[1]) E.g., the baker decides to bake 10 loaves of bread instead of a government official telling him a quota.

Yes, I understand that many people use another definition of "free market" to mean "theoretical and impossible to exist market" -- because it would require all humans to be all-knowledgeable Laplace's Demon[2] and impervious to hidden influences.

Ok, I get that language usage evolves and labels get diluted and therefore, "free market" is meaningless. In that case, what _do_ we call imperfect humans trading without government dictating quotas to us? I'm open to alternative labels.

EDIT: people are misunderstanding my comment to lordnacho. I'm not against government intervention to limit bad effects of ads. I'm dissecting lordnacho's rhetoric.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#39

Post by soulofmischief »

lordnacho wrote: post #33

If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find m…

My personal favorite is the Axe Effect commercials:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKNTCP-ctGw

It's hard to imagine a world where these tactics ever go away. When dealing with cognitive biases I feel like it's loophole city.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#40

Post by lordnacho »

jasode wrote: post #38
lordnacho wrote: post #33

If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find m…

>humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? [...] How can the free market work if everyone is so easily affected by suggestion? I'm (genuinely) surprised that someone with your financial background knowledge would write those sentences about "free market". I think you already know that the "free" in "free market" mean…

Well we gotta call it something, kinda like communism and democracy. It means a lot of things to different people, but those things still vaguely refer to similar ideas. I tend not to support stringent definitions on things ("The US is a republic, not a democracy") because basically it ends up being word games.

If you look at economics, the idea is that people are rational agents. At least the orthodox idea which people are not told to question. From there you get all sorts of efficiency ideas that are the support for that government intervention idea of free markets. It goes free thinking -> efficient decisions -> government shouldn't intervene.

So of course if people aren't so free thinking, doesn't that change something?

The issue with advertising is that we have indeed agreed that certain interventions are legit. Externalities are another one of those things they mention in economics, and you'll find all sorts of models for how to deal with them. There are in fact loads of regulations, all grounded in the idea that even rational agents sometimes cause things to happen that we don't want, and should be fixed by intervention. Typically to do with information problems.

So then if actually we think government should intervene in some situations, why not in this one? Maybe it's just a matter of time, as evidence builds up. I suppose there's already controls for things like addictive gambling.

Post reply on HN