Why I Work on Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#191

Post by tnzm » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

overgard wrote: post #172

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…

It's funny, in the past about 99.999999 percent of the time ads never interested me. I think I might have clicked one in a decade. Recently, just from my youtube subscriptions I think, my youtube ads have been surprisingly relevant, for things like cnc routers or various embedded tools or what not -- ads that are actually for things I might be interested in buying. (Granted there's still a ton of obnoxious get rich q…

Everyone ignores the elephant in the room.

Just let the users set their own advertising profiles! Always relevant ads, no tracking needed.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#192

Post by lwhi » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

qsort wrote: post #38

lupire wrote: post #25

People wo believe that "tool makers aren't responsible for how the tool is misused" (for example, with cryptocurrency), do you feel the same way about adtech?

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…

Lawyers are essential for people accused of rape. Some will be accused incorrectly.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#193

Post by stevenicr » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #150

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…

I've never seen any evidence of anyone hurt by the large scale collection of personal data by Google and FB.

small data points from here compared to the big lot..

friend unsure about her marriage.. getting ads to sell her wedding ring via fbook.. they divorced 2 months later. Guess what the first thing she did was?

A friend's father.. gambling addiction and an android phone - sleeps on the streets and eats via dumpsters, still keeps that addictive android device running.

Google sending data on people to fusion centers.. maybe none of those people were ever hurt by that - or the sharing of info from location data dumps, or the vids from nest cams.. I would assume there is a probability that at least one person was hurt when actions via gun toting state came knocking on at least one door, maybe more - and that stuff 100% coming from collection of data.

Just because journalists aren't interviewing these people to see if they were hurt, does not mean it's not happening.

I have no way to opt people out of alcohol ads.. I've seen them so I know others have.. does a sale on the new pink-liqour at 10am lead someone to drink out of juice boxes before noon at a kid's soccer practice? I can't say for sure.. it's just a coincidence they are drinking the new advertised thing - maybe it was an ad on the liqour store window that did it - there won't be hard evidence there.

I can think of more, but I know these are small data points from here. I'm glad you have not witnessed such things.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#194

Post by bluefirebrand » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

qsort wrote: post #185

bluefirebrand wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An engineer building effective adtech is similarly behaving ethically according to their own career path The phrase "Effective adtech" is really downplaying the amount of unethical shit involved in building it. It could be effective without turning the internet into a race to the bottom. It could be effective without third party tracking, it could be effective without vacuuming every bit of data possible from every…

The core of my argument is that an engineer building the product is performing their duty. You don't have to sell me on the fact that ads are bad. I hate all ads. I'm a developer myself and I've never faced the dilemma, but I don't feel like blaming others for not wanting to become judges of good and evil. Like in the case of a lawyer, doing your job and doing it well is in and of itself ethical. I really can't draw…

> The core of my argument is that an engineer building the product is performing their duty

This is the kind of rhetoric that is used to justify doing war crimes. It is absolutely not a defense of unethical behavior.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#195

Post by fxleach » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:27 PM UTC

the_snooze wrote: post #144

elliekelly wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The ads. Aren't. The problem. The stalking is. Exactly. If you want online ads done right, look no further than how podcasts do it. The medium doesn't allow for stalking. Podcast producers often stake their own reputation by voicing the ads themselves. That editorial freedom lets them be creative and respectful of their audiences. And advertisers can use podcast-specific coupon codes to attribute ad campaigns to sal…

The issue is that you cannot have good online advertising without a little bit of the stalking. Do you listen to podcasts? Their ads are shite. I don't want to hear another ad about "Coroner" on Netflix. The only reason they are making money is because podcasts are "hot" right now and everyone is throwing money at them. That money pile will slowly deplete in due time and they'll find a way to introduce ads that are more targeted towards the individual that's listening and guess what, we'll be right back here with the same supposed problem.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#196

Post by jefftk » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:28 PM UTC

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:…

> fail to address the actual ethical issue

Could you be more specific about what you think the ethical issue is? I've seen many comments describing very different ethical objections, from several perspectives, and I'm not sure which one is yours?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#197

Post by weasel_words » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:28 PM UTC

redleggedfrog wrote: post #8

That sure sounds like appeasing guilt with charity donations.

...and good old fashion virtue signaling https://www.jefftk.com/donations

imo, honest hearts never need to publicize their altruism to the world.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#198

Post by jokethrowaway » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

I don't think ads are bad per se, people don't like them because they don't like paying.

No-one is forcing you to see ads and often you have the option to buy your way out of ads. More in general if people preferred to pay we see a paid alternative emerge, thanks to the nature of the market. The reality is that the majority of people are not privacy conscious and don't care as much as people in tech do.

Overall, I'd be prouder to work on Google Ads, which provides services on a voluntary basis, than to work for the IRS or HMRC which impose their government's decisions on people under threat of fines and eventually incarceration.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#199

Post by Justsignedup » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

I do not believe Ads are inherently evil. However there are some problems with the _current_ ad industry.

The extreme tracking based on the mental state and identity of ads make them more than annoying. It is annoying to watch stupid ads on TV. But it is way worse when the ads are targeting my mental weaknesses directed directly at me. Example being how the Cambridge Analytica was able to make ad campaigns targeting _individuals_.

Generalized, non-targeted ads are fine. Though I do have problems with ads assaulting me wherever I go. I am fine with visiting a website that is ad supported and getting ads on the side, but I am not fine with walking home and seeing ads everywhere I glance at. And worse when ads are formatted so much like the actual content to trick you into thinking you're consuming content and not ads. Or even worse, sponsored pushes when you don't even know this is an advertisement.

Point is: Things cost money. Yes. But I don't think the current ad industry is anything other than toxic as hell.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#200

Post by jefftk » Thu, May 06, 2021, 3:30 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #167

crumbshot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I found it interesting that the first thing he says to defend his work with ads is that he gives money to charity. If you feel like you need to donate to charity to justify your actions, maybe your actions are evil? There has to be some level of guilt involved in that decision, at the very least. Which is to say, I don't blame him for what he does. If someone dangled all that money in my face I can't say I wouldn't b…

> the first thing he says to defend his work with ads is that he gives money to charity

The reason that I work (as opposed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement) is so I can donate, which is why I start with that piece of the explanation.