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

151–160 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#151

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

ipaddr wrote: post #39
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 outcry would be huge if everything went to a pay model.

Was the web supported by ads before Google? I don't remember.

Does the web have to be supported by ads? If the web was a non-profit service, supported by public funds, managed by academic institutions for example, would we miss 90% of the content that's basically sponsored by someone who wants to sell something?

From my point of view it looks like the web is a giant advertising machine built on top of something that could be ... not a giant advertising machine. Still from my POV, it just happens that the big players on the web are suppoting ads because that's where their revenue comes from and if they weren't the big players, then we wouldn't have a web of ads.

So basically we're not paying for ads that we wouldn't be paying for if google didn't run the web.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#152

Post by js8 »

defaultname wrote: post #93
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…

There are many, many cases where users choose pay options over `free'-but-ad-supported options. The pay options usually have a better/more honest financial model, and more aligned interests with their users. And there certainly is a universe where we would pay for search, in the same way that we pay for countless other things. Google's business model scorched Earth the realm, though, so there isn't a lot of potential…

Things being paid from advertising, rather than from user's pocket, is also patronizing. When things are paid from user's pockets, it's the user who controls whether the expense is made, to whom and how much. If things are paid through ads, it is companies (and their management) that make the decisions, not their customers. I argue that paying from your own pocket is a more free system.

However, I understand that if this had to change, the income would have to shift, too.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#154

Post by cm2012 »

elliekelly wrote: post #88
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…

I find the "ads are useful" argument frustratingly disingenuous. It's a transparent and deliberate attempt to move the discussion away from what people actually take issue with in modern internet advertising - tracking and data collection - and instead tries to frame it as something far more benign. The ads. Aren't. The problem. The stalking is. Ads can be useful. But no one is saying they aren't! So why is it consta…

Okay, do you have an example of someone being hurt by tracking and data collection done by Facebook and Google?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#155

Post by mrblampo »

omginternets wrote: post #128
jefftk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

It sounds like you would be happier to see the next sentence get into greater detail about how targets ads impact privacy today. But the article does in fact do so (look at the paragraph that starts "This model has some major drawbacks..."), and the next paragraph you refer to ("Most products are a much better fit...") builds to that point by explaining why targeted ads exist at all.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#156

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

xtracto wrote: post #114
ipaddr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I already hate it with Music and Video content: With music, I pay Youtube Music, but they don't have all the artists I like. I would have to pay for Spotify, Tidal and Youtube Music to get close to it. This means paying $30 USD per month With video... I pay $70 USD for my cable company (HBO+Star+misc-crap) plus $13 USD for Netflix, plus $12 for disney plus (wife likes a couple shows there), plus $13 Amazon Prime, plu…

>> plus $12 for disney plus (wife likes a couple shows there)

Sh, it's OK, everyone does it, you are not alone :P

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#157

Post by jasode »

cletus wrote: post #143
fouric wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I see very little friction to any of them - $10/year YT subscription disappears into the background So there are several problems with this: 1. You restated the above commenter's cost from $10/month to $10/year for some reason. For context, Google's annual revenue seems to be $180B. That makes $10/month far closer to the likely alternative; 2. That $10/year or $10/month "disappears into the background" for you . Th…

>You restated the above commenter's cost from $10/month to $10/year for some reason.

fyi... That was my fault because I later edited it without realizing others had quickly quoted it. I made a typo "$10/year" which was clearly a mistake because no mainstream service for videos/music/books charges 84 cents a month.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#158

Post by apetrovic »

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 second paragraph begins with how much the author gives to charity. So I'm assuming that the author is very aware about ethic questions, and the whole piece is about painting the whole privacy intruding industry that dominates the entire world in pinkish colors.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#159

Post by lwhi »

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…

> I've been using Google Search for over 20 years for free which is pretty amazing. Would I rather replay history and pay ~$120 every year (~$2400 ?) to search for web articles? No.

I feel the main point is, no you haven't got this for free.

If you were to pay $2400 dollars, Google would also need to pay you for your attention during this time

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#160

Post by jefftk »

kerng wrote: post #89
underyx wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ignores the actual ethical problems (e.g. large-scale collection of personal information) I find it ironic to see this brought up as the first example of problems, when this is exactly what Google's FLoC intends to solve. The same FLoC that has so vocally been rejected by HN recently.

The criticism of FLoC is that it makes profiling a lot easier because a website can access the ID with javascript. And there are also a lot of design questions remaining that Google hasn't answered or is not sure about. Eg. How will ad bidding work with FLoC? Finally, and most importantly as it relates to this post - Google pays an enormous amount of money to employees to spend their time and intelligence on building…

> How will ad bidding work with FLoC?

I don't work on FLoC, but why wouldn't bidding handle it just like any other signal? For example, here's where it is in the OpenRTB docs: https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/openrtb-... An advertiser could take it into account in considering whether they want to bid and how much.

Post reply on HN