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

131–140 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#131

Post by mrweasel »

dmitriid wrote: post #64

> 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 a…

That one annoyed me as well, but for a different reason. The open web doesn't require funding, the commercial web does.

Advertising on the net doesn't bother me as much as it once did, but I also see less of it. I don't really visit news sites, mostly the ones already funded by my tax money or the subscription I pay for.

The best blogs rarely have ads. 20 years ago any random blog would have ads, not so any more. Search engines, at least DDG have a reasonable ad policy, even though I have reported a large number of questionable ads. Google is a little useless, because actual result drown in ads for some searches.

I think contextual ads should be preferred over those based on a users past behaviour online. It's really only news sites and social media that needs the ads based on tracking users.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#132

Post by Pfhreak »

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…

> $10/year YT subscription disappears into the background

I used to live off of $7,000 a year. $10/year is something I'd seriously think about.

I'd be careful about generalizing a fixed cost subscription's impact. Typically, it will hit poorer communities harder than wealthy communities.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#133

Post by jefftk »

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.

> he earns over half a million dollars a year

nit: that's my family's joint income. My individual income is at https://www.jefftk.com/money

(I've been putting my income online since 2008 when my salary was $65k. https://www.jefftk.com/p/salary-publicy for why I think more people should share their incomes.)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#134

Post by NilsIRL »

It's not because it's funded by advertising that it's cheaper for the user, in the end, the consumer pays for the advertising when they purchase something

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#135

Post by jollybean »

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:…

"involvement in something prima facie unethical" - except that it's not.

Ads are the consumers choice. Given a choice between paying for something or ads, they will chose the ads. So they get ads. That's mostly why we are where we are.

Many of the negative externalisatons are a matter of application, moreover, there are a variety of opinions on what is appropriate and not. For example, I don't care if Facebook uses my behaviour on Facebook to decide what ads to run, as long as that is otherwise anonymous, private and protected. Others will have differing opinions but I think most regular Americans, Europeans etc. have a variety of views but mostly not centred around the notion that ads are inherently evil.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#136

Post by falcolas »

Unpopular opinion: Ads by themselves are unethical. Whether targeted, contextual, or just randomly applied.

Ads are psychological warfare against a populace using their very nature against them. All in an effort to get them to change their behavior in a way that's going to be detrimental to them. Either they stop looking for alternatives, or they make purchases they don't need to (see: toothpaste consumption rates).

Ads are unethical, and are only considered acceptable because they have been around for so long, and because they're "easy" to use and supposedly ignore. Anyone working in the ad industry is directly supporting this unethical behavior. This isn't an "NTP is also used in cyber warfare" style of engagement, this is writing missile guidance systems levels of engagement.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#137

Post by jnwatson »

falcolas wrote: post #123
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.

But so is essentially all interaction with your environment. Every interaction you have with essentially everyone might change your behavior. The only difference is the scale.

The problem is that the power of targeted advertising has been democratized (irony intended) to allow everyone to do it. It is capable enough that it can end peaceful democracies.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#138

Post by jefftk »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #34
jefftk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> n this case I see how it's worse for fishing sites, but not how it's bad for consumers: their willingness to buy fishing equipment translates into support for all the sites they visit, and not just the fishing sites. It's bad for the consumer because their privacy is being violated and their metadata is being sold, in order for advertisers to track them everywhere they go online, so businesses can try and extract a…

> their privacy is being violated and their metadata is being sold, in order for advertisers to track them everywhere they go online

This is exactly what I'm working on changing; have a look at the second half of the post?

(Or read https://github.com/WICG/turtledove)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#139

Post by Pfhreak »

efa wrote: post #104
Bellamy wrote: post #18

1. Good points. There is no better alternative available. 2. There are worst jobs to have like working for the auto industry. 3. He's definitely a better person than I am with better values. Who gives 50% earned to charity?

>>Who gives 50% earned to charity? Perhaps some. But I'm sure they don't brag to the world about it.

Can you advocate for doing an ethical thing like that and not have it be considered bragging? I've often wondered about how to encourage others to give more, volunteer more.

If I don't do those things (or don't claim to), people will say, "Why should I do that? You don't do that! Hypocrite."

If I do those things, people will say, "You are just bragging/virtue signaling."

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#140

Post by cortesoft »

alxlaz wrote: post #65
jefftk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

You can make similar arguments for almost all jobs.

You make cars? You focus on good things like driving to a vacation, but what about all the cars used in drive by shootings?

You sell cloud services? You talk about the great websites, but what about all the people who host scam sites on the cloud?

You write monitoring software? What about all the people who monitor ad services?

Post reply on HN