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

121–130 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#121

Post by jefftk »

omginternets wrote: post #41
jasode wrote: post #29

The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I will offer a contrarian opinion as a user whose salary does not depend on advertising: the advertising model for using Google search and watching Youtube videos works better for me as a consumer . The alternati…

>The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I don't think that's why people are downvoting. Speaking for myself, it's because his analysis focuses only on the benefits of ads, and conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems ( e.g. large-scale collect…

> conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems (e.g. large-scale collection of personal information)*

Ignores? That's what the entire second half of the post is about ;)

Starting at "But the biggest issue I see people raising is the privacy impact of targeted ads..."

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#122

Post by omginternets »

solipsism wrote: post #118
omginternets wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The prima facie part means "at first glance". I deliberately chose that turn of phrase to suggest that it might prove not to be unethical, on closer inspection. The problem, of course, is that this closer inspection didn't happen.

Yeah you're right. Sorry!

No worries, my friend :)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#123

Post by falcolas »

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:…

> the problem is not with advertising in general

I disagree. Advertising is intrusive and designed to convince you to do things you wouldn't normally do. It's large scale psychological manipulation that's only considered ethical because we've been doing it for so long.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#124

Post by thrwaeasddsaf »

For me the first big disagreement begins with asking for what's the alternative. I don't think there needs to be an alternative. I think ads are largely responsible for the sorry state of the seo spammed web where finding what you want can be a complete nightmare. (It costs almost nothing to run a website, and if you spam enough ~zero cost sites loaded with ads and affiliate links, you can probably make a buck. This prospect just encourages spam and low effort sites.)

I don't care one bit if ad supported sites just vanish, no need for an alternative. Yes please, clean up the web. What's left is the stuff that is worth enough for people to pay for.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#125

Post by jefftk »

fouric wrote: post #109
jasode wrote: post #29

The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I will offer a contrarian opinion as a user whose salary does not depend on advertising: the advertising model for using Google search and watching Youtube videos works better for me as a consumer . The alternati…

> all more user hostile for my use cases Why are these user-hostile? I see very little friction to any of them - $10/year YT subscription disappears into the background (that's, what, two moderately expensive coffee drinks? if you spend just a single day watching educational content, the obtained value will easily exceed $10), per-search microtransactions would be so cheap that you could just turn on the "always tran…

> It's easy, from a technical perspective, to design a low-friction microtransaction system.

Oh? People have been trying since at least https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/ (1995)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#126

Post by mbg721 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #116
mbg721 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that amounts to the same thing; the lawyer thinks "This $#@& is guilty as sin, but the court has to prove it." Few professions have a regular test of that kind.

A lawyer can have their whole career ruined if they are found throwing cases. The justice system itself finds it unethical if they don't prosecute or defend to the best of their ability. Suggesting that software somehow has that same kind of standard where engineers are required to build anything and everything they are asked to the best of their ability or they can lose their accreditation (as if we even have that i…

Software isn't fundamentally adversarial in the same way that criminal law is, but that's a fair point.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#127

Post by inetknght »

pydry wrote: post #101
dahfizz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's absurd. People need groceries. If the National Enquirer went to a paid subscription model or disappeared entirely nobody would riot.

> That's absurd. People need groceries.

Thus: if groceries used to be free, but suddenly cost money, people would riot.

Arguably: why would people riot about not-free Youtube?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#128

Post by omginternets »

jefftk wrote: post #121
omginternets wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I don't think that's why people are downvoting. Speaking for myself, it's because his analysis focuses only on the benefits of ads, and conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems ( e.g. large-scale collect…

> conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems (e.g. large-scale collection of personal information)* Ignores? That's what the entire second half of the post is about ;) Starting at "But the biggest issue I see people raising is the privacy impact of targeted ads..."

>Starting at "But the biggest issue I see people raising is the privacy impact of targeted ads..."

Yes, that's literally all you have to say on the subject.

The very next paragraph is about how this helps keep ads relevant...

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#130

Post by celticninja »

omginternets wrote: post #41
jasode wrote: post #29

The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I will offer a contrarian opinion as a user whose salary does not depend on advertising: the advertising model for using Google search and watching Youtube videos works better for me as a consumer . The alternati…

>The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I don't think that's why people are downvoting. Speaking for myself, it's because his analysis focuses only on the benefits of ads, and conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems ( e.g. large-scale collect…

I think that advertising in general, pre-internet, was perhaps a pain. It was unsightly to have stuff plastered all over buses, trains, any available space someone was trying to show something in your face, to get their brands name in your eyeline.

Now they are still doing that, but they have compounded the awfulness, because now they track where you are visiting and push more of those ads in your eyeline. Switched device, tough, the ads do too. The advertiser now also knows who looked at the ad, where they came from to see the ad, where the left to after they saw the ad. And then what they did for the next 2 weeks, so now they can make sure their ad is in front of your eyes whenever they want because they tracked your browsing habits.

Advertising was bad before, now it is insidious tracking and monitoring of users, under the pretense of advertising. /rant

Post reply on HN