241–250 of 339 posts
do i get a consent screen if i don't have an account
if you don't have a FB account, why would you install the app?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors I would like to know how this conclusion was reached. By that logic, the advertising industry would not really need individual targeting at all
This would just return to 2000-esque state of affairs, where the ad model was based on selling page views, clicks or actions. That model favors small publishers (as niche advertisers flock to niche publications) and disadvantages large generic publishers (social networks, email clients, portals).
I agree. Advertisers would have to go back to contextual targeting, identifying websites that are likely to appeal the target audience, rather than simply buying the audience programmatically on Google's ad network
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> THIS is the best you can do with teams of engineers making > $200k/year throwing AI at everything? Maybe it is the best we can currently do and maybe it isn't objectively great. But the real question: is it better? I mean, better than the random shotgun approach that was TV, magazines, bus wraps, billboards, etc. Is it better than the spam flyers or "yellow pages" the post office delivered to every single household…
I don't buy that. For example - I bought a rowing machine on Amazon. It was the first piece of home gym equipment I'd ever purchased. For months after, other rowing machines were suggested to me. I already bought one, why would I buy another, especially if I hadn't returned the first one? Ads like this are very common for me - a purchase that I would consider to be a one-off thing (at least, for several years, whatev…
Your logic may be solid but you probably lack sufficient data. Plato was a pretty smart guy but he thought the four elements were Water, Fire, Air and Earth. His mistake wasn't intelligence or even flaws in his logic - it was missing data. If you begin your logic from one or more faulty assumptions then you will arrive at wrong conclusions regardless of how intelligent you are or how flawless your application of logic is.
I don't have the data either - but you should at least use logic to consider possible reasons why you are seeing the same products you have purchased previously. Perhaps this is a strategy that wins significantly more often than you assume and you just lack the data to illuminate why.
As the other commenter noted, you are but one data point in the literal hundreds of millions of data points available to Amazon. It would be humble to consider that they've tried your best first guess approach and it was suboptimal compared to the alternatives running now. Or maybe you choose to believe you are smarter than every single engineer that has worked on the problem there? And you believe this while lacking any data, having performed no experiments, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“No one actually needs a car either. Or to eat industrially produced food. Or etc. etc.“ This is a false equivalence. Facebook is nowhere near at that level of need yet.
I think it's not really a false equivalence, as a matter of degree - but see edit made in response to this. There is also an issue of Maslow style leveling here, but the core point is identical.
> Nobody needs a smart phone" or "No family of 4 needs a >2000sq/ft house" or the like as examples.
Even these are in a totally different class of ‘need’ to Facebook which is trivially substituted by comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're more forgiving than I am. As far as I'm concerned, individual-targeted advertising has such inherently perverse incentives that even those starting out with good intentions (e.g. consensual opt-in) will eventually find themselves engaged in unethical, privacy-eroding behavior as a matter of course. Consider what would happen if you outlawed individual-targeted advertising. Ad relevancy falls overall. What then…
> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors. This is absolutely not the case. Google’s biggest ad clients achieve pretty incredible ROI (called ROAS) on each dollar they spend. And they track these obsessively—I supported a large travel client that had a small (but highly skilled) engineering team dedicated exclusively to their…
Or, flipping it: if some advertisers are extremely effective, that pushes up the price for the ones that aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Overall advertising budgets are not dominated by the effectiveness of advertising, but by adversarial spending by their competitors. This is absolutely not the case. Google’s biggest ad clients achieve pretty incredible ROI (called ROAS) on each dollar they spend. And they track these obsessively—I supported a large travel client that had a small (but highly skilled) engineering team dedicated exclusively to their…
At least someone in this thread gets it. Ad tracking really is about attribution, personalized ads are secondary nice-to-have. This is how small businesses figure out their advertising budget. Where are our customers coming from, or more importantly, where are they not coming from, so we know where to spend or not spend our limited resources? But I’m not surprised this isn’t pointed out more often. The hardcore priva…
Why would anyone agree to this? I don’t see a benefit to letting Facebook or any company track me across the internet. When did we ever decide this was what consumers wanted? Every time this topic comes up I check Facebooks stock price and realize how detached people are from facebooks revenue driven by the advertisement market.
FB aren't entitled to a user's entire internet presence (digital and physical) just because the user doesn't pay for the account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would just return to 2000-esque state of affairs, where the ad model was based on selling page views, clicks or actions. That model favors small publishers (as niche advertisers flock to niche publications) and disadvantages large generic publishers (social networks, email clients, portals).
> That model favors small publishers (as niche advertisers flock to niche publications) and disadvantages large generic publishers (social networks, email clients, portals). I agree. Advertisers would have to go back to contextual targeting, identifying websites that are likely to appeal the target audience, rather than simply buying the audience programmatically on Google's ad network
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> THIS is the best you can do with teams of engineers making > $200k/year throwing AI at everything? Maybe it is the best we can currently do and maybe it isn't objectively great. But the real question: is it better? I mean, better than the random shotgun approach that was TV, magazines, bus wraps, billboards, etc. Is it better than the spam flyers or "yellow pages" the post office delivered to every single household…
I don't buy that. For example - I bought a rowing machine on Amazon. It was the first piece of home gym equipment I'd ever purchased. For months after, other rowing machines were suggested to me. I already bought one, why would I buy another, especially if I hadn't returned the first one? Ads like this are very common for me - a purchase that I would consider to be a one-off thing (at least, for several years, whatev…
I don't have the industry expertise to know how true it is, but I've seen it stated numerous times in threads like this that this is entirely intentional. Supposedly the data shows that a person who just bought a rowing machine is actually quite likely to buy another one (because they aren't satisfied with the first one, because they collect rowing machines, etc) compared to most other demographics.