Live data from Hacker News

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

261–270 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#261

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).…

Not having ads is also unethical. Imagine trying to spread a novel idea / product to a society or an oligopoly that wants to oppress you

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#262
post #150

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.

Targeted ads and analytics are not opt-in by default. This leads to shadow profiles and my data being handled by corporations I don't trust. I don't need facebook and all its stalkers to know where I live, for instance.

Not to mention targeted ads just don't work for me. They always show crap I'd never use, within my domain of knowledge, and never show interesting things outside my domain. Overall I'm more than glad to block ads because I gain nothing from them. They are a liability. Anonymization I don't believe in, what's the difference between my SSN and a MD5 of my SSN?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#263
post #240
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started on ads at Google in 2017, and have been donating since 2008: https://www.jefftk.com/donations

This statement does not address the parent's comment.

"appeasing guilt with charity donations" implies something like "ads -> guilt -> donations". That the donations came years before the ads is pretty good evidence otherwise?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#264
The late great Bill Hicks perfectly summarized my feelings towards advertisers/marketers.

There is nothing wrong with ads per-say, it is the real time bidding and targeted ads that I have problems with.

And of course malvertising such as the one which compromised my sisters laptop with a fileless rootkit a few years back.

Ads and analytics are not allowed on my home network.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#265
I give half of what I earn to the most effective charities I can find

That's not at all justification for practices that harm society, especially when that harm takes fewer resources to achieve than charity donations can make up for. It's like saying "I'm willing to work for a company with massive pollution because I donate some of my salary to Greenpeace."

Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but the fact that the author put this justification first is an implicit admission that they feel what they do is wrong in some way and try to offset it with donations.

The thing is, I think advertising is positive

It is difficult to think otherwise about something attached to your paycheck

I think advertising is positive... if I'm causing harm through my work I would like to know about it.

One really great example of harm is propaganda delivered via political attack ads that polarize the population by provoking anger, fear, and hatred.

Ads. You pay with your attention.

You aren't given a choice in most cases to choose attention or $$. You also pay with more than attention: your privacy, personal data, and tracking of online actions. Many off-line actions can also be tracked by purchasing data from other sources and matching to the data collected online.

Non-regressive

This would be a better point if many media outlets didn't still use paywalls and ads together

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#266
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…

are all more user hostile for my use cases

Sure, your use cases. Not other people's though, and we don't get a choice.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#267
Ads are bad because of their implementation, not as a concept.

The “alternatives” are not paywalls vs. ads, the alternative is to be a less awful ad provider.

Unintrusive text is fine. Static images without flashy animations are fine. Even watching something like a funny TV commercial is great because it seems worth the time.

Yet somewhere along the line, somebody decided it was “fine” to shove overlays in my face, stubbornly keep things in place during scrolling, auto-playing sound, etc. And all that crap is before even factoring in the gigabytes of bandwidth stolen from me to download and run JavaScript that ultimately serves to be a creepy stalker around the Internet.

So feel free to work on ads without shame as long as the ads you work on aren’t shameless.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you didn't bother to read the entire article because the author does go into the ethical and privacy related concerns about ads. It is always interesting to read about people's opinions on topics such as this, and the fact that you dismissed it outright with such ignorance as to call it a bad-faith argument tells me you are not open to hearing opinions that differ from your own. As a result, a downvote…

There is no mention of ethics, and the privacy discussion ends with "I don't think my work in advertising is something harmful to offset." The author seems to think there are some good ideas to increase privacy that he is working on, but the existing problems are not serious enough to be considered "harmful".

It is here:

> This model has some major drawbacks from a privacy perspective. Typically, the vendor doesn't just get that you are interested in cars, they get the full URL of the page you are on. This lets them build up a pretty thorough picture of all the pages you have visited around the web. Then they can link their database with other vendors databases, and get even more coverage.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#270

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.

Yes, and in this he contradicts himself because that statement is a tacit admission of the ethical problems, yet the rest is basically a justification of all of it.
Post reply on HN