Live data from Hacker News

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

301–310 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#301
post #35
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…

> The traditional way of doing this is to buy ads on fishing sites. Before digital advertising or Google reading emails to find out you're going on a fishing trip, how did people buy fishing equipment? Whatever we did then, we can probably go back to and be much better off. Like why do I need "relevant ads" on a blog about urban planning? What problem does that solve for me?

Google doesn't read emails for ad targeting.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#302
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.

This is because you've never looked for the evidence. It is trivial to find with a 10 second search.

https://www.intomore.com/you/facebook-ads-outed-me/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2018/12/12/dear-tec...

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/4/9/21204425/targeted-ads...

https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers..., https://www.propublica.org/article/hud-sues-facebook-housing..., https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-disc...

https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/04/29/credit-card...

https://themarkup.org/news/2021/04/13/how-facebooks-ad-syste...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-27/ad-scamme...

etc. etc. etc.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#303
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Last gas station for N miles!" Whether true or not, it will convince you to top off your tank, and potentially purchase some things from the shop.

Yet, they don’t convince you to wildly increase your driving or top up a nearly full tank. To change how much gas you’re buying in a lifetime it would need to change how far you drive. On the other hand T-Shirt advertising can convince you to buy significantly more clothes in a lifetime. It’s a qualitative difference even if I didn’t express it well.

If you're going past a gas station, you're already driving - they want you to come to stop at their gas station.

> To change how much gas you’re buying in a lifetime it would need to change how far you drive.

City/state/national tourism bureaus are taking care of that part. With help from the automobile industry's marketing arm.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#304
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I read that part. The article still ends with the claim that this drawback is not actually harmful.

In between that claim and the end of the article I describe how I'm working on https://github.com/WICG/turtledove etc to build well-targeted advertising without sending your browsing history to advertisers

I understand, and I'm glad you're thinking about it, but you could not have been more clear: "I don't think my work in advertising is something harmful to offset." Did you misspeak? Do you think it is harmful but turtledove might reduce the harm?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#305
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…

Making doughnuts and soft drinks available to everyone for free is superficially a huge win for people. They are valuable (as determined by marketplace) and lowering the cost makes them more available to everyone.

But measuring the net societal impact of a cheap stopped at that point is basically worthless. There are many 2nd and 3rd order impacts that must be included. The obvious is health, but others include the marginal cost considerations of where the money will go that is "saved". Or what alternative food would be purchased (if it's deep fried Twinkies, maybe free doughnuts are a health win).

Any work that makes the ad marketplace more efficient (easier for creation and deployment of effective ads or ad instrumentation) has huge effects on relative competitiveness of startups vs. conglomerates. Just as one example. And those effects directly affect consumers.

I can avoid ad surveillance to some degree, but am powerless to help a business that can't survive in an ad-driven economy. I can't single-handedly keep my local hardware store in business against the threat from conglomerates capable of operating indefinitely on zero margins.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#306
The article completely misses it. I used to work at Google, too, in Ads (the organization), but not on Ads. Most of the people I know were pretty focused on building their little corner of tech to accomplish a particular technical feat (implement a datastore, find bad ads, etc). None of the people I met were evil money-grubber types.

But there was a certain reality-distortion field that only becomes apparent when stepping out of it.

Ads exist in order to sell your attention to the highest bidder. Ads exist to support an exponentially growing tech giant's goals of infinite growth. Ads exist to keep a snowball snowballing. There is no ads business on Earth today that is focused on "just keeping the lights on". So the amount of ads that are out there just keeps increasing. Ads are creeping into every corner of life.

Just take Google search. If you look at the amount of computational resources that it takes Google to run search for today's internet, it takes X dollars. But Google's revenues are literally 5 X, if not 10 or 20. Google is sucking down a huge ton of money that is going to growth and funding zillions of other things...that will also eventually get ads, like Maps, reviews, YouTube, etc. Second, this "X dollars to run search" we are talking about is probably somewhere between 10 and 100 times what was required just a few short years ago. So we are talking about throwing 100 or 200 times--maybe even 1000, just look at the racks of Google made from legos from 1999!--the amount of computational power at a problem than it really needs, and that's to support the advertising market that Google has created in order to support search.

If Google websearch were a non-profit, I think it would require less than a billion dollars to run every year. For perspective, the United States Federal Government spent over $85 billion on the SNAP (food stamps) program last year.

So, instead of spending pocket change on a public utility that gives everyone access to "organized, universally accessible" (to borrow Google's mission statement) information, we have this behemoth focused on generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that just accidentally happens to have a massive influence over everything we see.

You work on ads, Jeff? You've clearly done a lot of thinking as to why that's great. Me? I bowed out of the entity trying to attach a tacky flyer for Ovaltine to every book, magazine, news article, and video clip I see. I bowed out of an entity whose main existence is apparently to mediate every interaction I have with a computer--or another person--and insert advertising into.

I'm actually really sick of ads!

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#307
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…

Now take us through the individual and collective consequences of mass data collection. You seem to be deliberately focusing on the beneficial parts of advertising, at the exclusion of the harmful bits. If you want to maintain your credibility -- let alone give the impression of someone striving to live ethically -- you'll need to give that second part its due attention. Addendum: If I were offered a generous salary…

Let's talk about the individual and collective consequences of mass data collection. Are you saying you know something about those? Do tell!

Maybe I'm just terribly dense, but I seriously can't think of any reasonable objection to what google does. The best I personally can come up with is that most people don't understand what google is doing and if they did know some of them might object.

When I google "the individual and collective consequences of mass data collection" I get results that talk about the NSA and human rights -- this doesn't seem to have much to do with what google is doing though. When I add "google" to that search I get a rambling article on "How surveillance changes people's behavior".

Please help me out here -- how am I or anyone else being harmed by google knowing what sites I visit?

I don't think the author is being disingenuous. I do think there is a sizable subset of privacy advocates who have become so stringently ideological about this issue they would downvote even thoughtful replies and are so caught up in their bubble that they seemingly can't have a conversation with anyone outside of it.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#308
I've been using scroll.com. It removes ads on many sites for $5 per month (Vox, The Atlantic, USA Today, Kotaku, ...). Apparently sites make more from scroll subscribers on average than they do from folks seeing ads. Twitter just announced they bought scroll.

As for this article, I think it is good to find a way to have targeted ads while preserving privacy.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#309
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In between that claim and the end of the article I describe how I'm working on https://github.com/WICG/turtledove etc to build well-targeted advertising without sending your browsing history to advertisers

I understand, and I'm glad you're thinking about it, but you could not have been more clear: "I don't think my work in advertising is something harmful to offset." Did you misspeak? Do you think it is harmful but turtledove might reduce the harm?

My work on advertising is on Turtledove

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#310
post #154

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…

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

I'm not them but from the top of my mind, an example:

1. Facebook tracks users across the internet to enrich the profiles of their users

2. Data leaks.

3. Users are now in trouble.

I can come up with many more if you ask and then give me a sec.

Post reply on HN