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

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#61

Post by kingsuper20 »

The online ad business generally mystifies me. While an awful lot of the internet, especially the surveillance advertising part, looks to be the greatest misallocation of engineering (and other) talent in the history of the world, ya gotta ask about the efficacy.

The only reasonably accurate targeting I've ever run into is the occasional ad for something I just browsed on Amazon. I've never clicked on an internet ad. Youtube advertising might as well be targeted to an alien race. What in the hell keeps this whole business afloat at it's current level? Am I being programmed to buy that mechanic's vise because they threw up an after-the-browse ad?

No doubt there's some sort of backend telemetry that proves the value of all this trouble, but I just don't see it. Maybe the emperor really is nekkid.

edit: It may well be that the real marketing genius in the advertising industry is not it's value in increasing sales, whether it's old school print media/OTA/tradeshows or the newfangled spying-on-you internet variety, but in convincing it's customers of advertising's value. Anything beyond pushing you up a search engine's ranking strikes me as a sketchy proposition.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#62

Post by solipsism »

omginternets wrote: post #13

I'm always surprised that someone would go through the trouble of justifying their involvement in something prima facie unethical -- in writing, no less -- and fail to address the actual ethical issue. As other have noted in comments, the problem is not with advertising in general, but with the specific way in which Google advertises. I have a hard time believing the author is unaware of this, so I'm left wondering:…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#63

Post by qsort »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #56
qsort wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find all ads reprehensible regardless of tracking and yes, I believe adtech engineers aren't responsible for that. Specifically, author of OP doesn't have to justify himself. He enjoys his job and I'm happy for him. Blaming technicians for the negative externalities of their industries is a dark path. Are we going to blame lawyers who defend rapists? General Motors assembly-line workers? Engineers who work for oil…

Engineers building unethical things is wildly different than lawyers defending rapists, because a lawyer defending a rapist is behaving ethically according to their career path. Software engineers agreeing to build awful shit is more like mechanical engineers building weapons. They should know what they are doing is going to cause harm and if they choose to do it anyways I have no issue calling them unethical.

An engineer building effective adtech is similarly behaving ethically according to their own career path.

Lawyers effectively defending awful clients, for example, managing to get them off the hook on a technicality, are likewise generating massive negative externalities for society at large.

It's either both or neither, and I'm not comfortable going down that path.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#64

Post by dmitriid »

> And so: ads. Funding the open web.

Nope. Ads are not funding the open web.

The vast majority of ad revenue and spending goes into the pockets of Facebook (openly hostile to the idea of an open web) and Google (sneakily hostile to the open web, and busy working on replacing the web with all things Google).

Actual open web partially supported by advertisement? I don't think it ever existed. And when it did, it sure as hell didn't require pervasive 24/7 surveillance of everyone.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#65

Post by alxlaz »

jefftk wrote: post #9
czzr wrote: post #4

Biggest issue with this argument - advertising supported businesses are fine, contextual advertising is fine, targeted cross site advertising is a pointless red queen race that is undermining our society in multiple ways.

Can you say more what you mean by "pointless red queen race"? Let's say someone wants to sell fishing equipment. The traditional way of doing this is to buy ads on fishing sites. So now my fishing equipment purchases make there be more writing about fishing; yay! Then one of the fishing websites decides to put a tracking pixel on their site to drop "fishing website visitor" cookies (or, in a future without third-part…

Why do all the examples from the advertising industry have such easy-peasy, neutral goods? Fishing equipment. Basket weaving books. Dog food.

Targeted advertising hasn't been a blessing just for small businesses selling fishing equipment and organic combucha, but also -- actually, especially, for companies that sell things like:

* Potentially addictive subscriptions (for e.g. online casinos or other gambling games) -- thus specifically targeting people who are at risk for addiction, unless your targeting settings are crap.

* Snake oil skincare products for teenagers, or potentially dangerous weight loss tablets -- thus compounding peer pressure against young people with poor self esteem.

* Bullshit therapy "options" like German New Medicine, specifically targeting people who are terminally ill, or researching things like cancer treatment for a relative or a friend.

Boy am I glad we're increasing the total amount of funding available for online content!

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#66

Post by solipsism »

crumbshot wrote: post #51
omginternets wrote: post #13

I'm always surprised that someone would go through the trouble of justifying their involvement in something prima facie unethical -- in writing, no less -- and fail to address the actual ethical issue. As other have noted in comments, the problem is not with advertising in general, but with the specific way in which Google advertises. I have a hard time believing the author is unaware of this, so I'm left wondering:…

> I have a hard time believing the author is unaware of this, so I'm left wondering: why? What was the point of this exercise? I reckon it was mostly a brag about (1) how he earns over half a million dollars a year for inflicting this upon us all and (2) how much more charitable he is than most of the rest of us.

This comes across as incredibly salty. If the arguments are bad, explain why. Or don't.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#67

Post by dhimes »

Once again (I'm getting hoarse from shouting this): Ads are fine. Having ads where I am looking at something because I am interested in it is fine.

Tracking me is not.

Are we talking ad-tech, or tracking-tech?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#69

Post by dahfizz »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #47
ipaddr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outcry would be huge if everything went to a pay model.

You're right - but I find that strange. Most of us are not angry about the pay model for groceries or haircuts. A smaller - but still large - fraction of us are okay paying for other zero-marginal-cost goods like software as well. I wonder why we are so attached to free content online. Maybe because of the historical television model that's been mentally transferred to the internet?

Its just the fact that people are used to free content, so the idea of paying for it is foreign.

If groceries used to be free, but suddenly cost money, people would riot.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#70

Post by DoctorNick »

omginternets wrote: post #13

I'm always surprised that someone would go through the trouble of justifying their involvement in something prima facie unethical -- in writing, no less -- and fail to address the actual ethical issue. As other have noted in comments, the problem is not with advertising in general, but with the specific way in which Google advertises. I have a hard time believing the author is unaware of this, so I'm left wondering:…

It's written more for the benefit of the author than anyone else.
Post reply on HN