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

201–210 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#201

Post by stevenicr »

tnzm wrote: post #191
overgard wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

two thumbs up.

with our own set profiles, we could opt out of gambling, loot boxes, and alcohol ads too. I've been suggesting this for some time now.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#202

Post by baby-yoda »

My gripe with the author's rationalization (which is probably held by many of his peers as well, not to point specifically at him) is that the default of the web has become that you must accept ads being thrown in your face to do the most benign browsing activity.

a user makes an http request to a domain. the current accepted response is to send back ads and trackers, pillage and extract as much value from that user as possible, immediately. as a user I feel I should be prompted:

"this site is funded by ads. by continuing, you agree to the following..."

its just a sort of zero permission adulteration of the web - guaranteed ad revenue from a click begets more crap clickbait content and so on. in fact, perhaps ads and tracking mechanisms should be treated by browsers the same as zero click JS malware. no content til the user agrees to have ads delivered to them.

i get it, of course prompting a user would create friction and decrease revenue. its the user's machine, data. they are entitled to the optionality of rejecting an HTTP response if it contains unwanted/unwelcome crap.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#203

Post by floatrock »

apetrovic wrote: post #158
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.

Sounded like buying indulgences to me.

"My sins are forgiven as long as I tithe some of my profits". Buys your way out of the issue, doesn't change the lifestyle.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#204

Post by the_af »

supersrdjan wrote: post #180
the_af wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, this is a common (and justified) sentiment. I had a high school teacher give us a book about print advertising (this was way before the internet was a common thing) and how it deceives. How they sell cars with sexy women, how instead of selling a product they sell an unrelated image of success (which is not really tied to the product). It was a nice book, with lots of photos and examples, and all about how a…

Actually advertising works best when it exploits the needs and desires you already feel. The farther away it gets from those, the more expensive it gets. That said, ever since the sixties it does sell things based on people's need to project their status and image, as a way of defining oneself to the outside world. People buy things for what the thing does, plus what owning and using the thing says about your persona…

I agree. The point is that many people, including Bob Dylan, my high school teacher and many others seem to think advertisement purposefully misleads (or exploits) in order to sell. I tend to (partially) side with this opinion myself, but that's not the main point of my comment.

I'm supporting jasode's comment that lots of people do consider advertising morally objectionable. I believe this assertion is not controversial regardless of what one personally thinks about ads.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#205

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #198

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…

>No-one is forcing you to see ads

Uh? Where do you live? Where do you browse?

I'm a paid subscriber to newspapers and they keep tracking me and emailing/notifying/displaying ads. They even share my data to their "partners". I can't get out of my apartment without seeing ad everywhere (subway, buildings, billboards...). You cannot escape advertising unless you completely isolate yourself from society.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#206

Post by km3r »

stevenicr wrote: post #166
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…

If "The alternative of paying $9.99/year for Youtube" was really an option - I would buy it for at least 4 kids I know, and two adults that need it, to remove the horrible ads, especially on mobile. Get me started on the ads that come with play store apps and "free games". however at $12/month that would be $864 per year to help them. I would jump at $60 / year for 6 people.. heck that would save me on comcast overag…

A quick search (haha) shows that google pulls in $182/year per user and 90% of that is from advertising. So yes google makes a lot more than people think from ads. I also suspect that is heavily lopsided, with certain demographic being more sought after by advertisers. If they were to offer a flat opt out rate, would need to account for those people switching away and losing a very lucrative market. I would even imagine kids are unfortunately a target for advertisers because they can be very impressionable, and become lifelong customers if convinced early on.

In addition, a flat fee could lead to a slow on googles growth, as once a users pays, they can not find new ways to monetize that user.

Don't get me wrong, I love the option to pay a fee to opt out of certain ads. It really helps align the incentives of the user with the company, but unfortunately it would have to be expensive to average out the more lucrative ads.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#207

Post by sweetheart »

k__ wrote: post #163

"I give half of what I earn to the most effective charities I can find, and the more I earn the more I can give." It makes me sick to read this garbage. This charity bullshit is what too many rich people hide behind to rationalize the crap they do to humanity. Bezos and Gates destroyed so much good on their way up, they will never be able to buy themselves out with charity. Same goes for the author of that article. I…

Do you actually think this is garbage and bullshit, or do you think that maybe you're feeling a little insecure that someone is donating a _lot_ of money to good causes, and you're comparing yourself to them?

Genuinely not saying you are, but it's a very common subconscious reaction, and definitely worth investigating. When we see someone who appears to be taking the moral high road (however you define it), we feel the need to tear them down. Because that way we don't need to feel bad about _not_ doing the thing.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#208

Post by fsociety »

ForHackernews wrote: post #5

This article is really attacking a straw man. I don't know many people who think advertising per se is morally objectionable (annoying, yes). What many people find reprehensible is all the invasive spyware and tracking that comes with modern ad tech (largely pioneered by Google).

Lots of people do. When I joined Facebook, I received several death threats from someone in my circle and routinely get called morally bankrupt on the internet. I’ve also had encounters with individuals where they shun me after learning I worked there. Surprisingly it doesn’t bother me, they are overgeneralizing and don’t know me.. but certainly they find it morally objectionable.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#209

Post by toiletfuneral »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #151
ipaddr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like this point a lot, I do vaguely remember an internet before Google. The distinction was the internet felt built by people who had things to contribute, I think now the internet is a place to extract any and all value possible. We're too deep inside massive monolithic profit generation systems to see an alternative where the value isn't ultimately monetary. The lack of a true commons etc.

* I think AOL making its own internet inside itself was an interesting data point on early-ish internet

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#210

Post by falcolas »

jnwatson wrote: post #137
falcolas wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> But so is essentially all interaction with your environment

My every interaction with my environment doesn't involve millions of trained professionals bent to the sole purpose of influencing my actions.

Outside of ads, that is.

Post reply on HN