Why I Work on Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#331

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, May 06, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #136

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).…

How do you draw the difference between an ad and not an ad?

Is a doctor telling you to brush 2x a day an ad for toothpaste? What about their suggestion that you floss more? Those are aligned with your well being, but will increase your consumption.

> change their behavior in a way that's going to be detrimental to them.

This seems obviously wrong. The implication here is that anything advertised must be bad for the target. From an econ perspective this means that you reject the idea of comparative advantage.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#332

Post by cm2012 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

kreeben wrote: post #310

cm2012 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This doesn't actually happen though. When FB is hacked its the same banal hacks anyone else has, phone numbers, etc.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#333

Post by burkaman » Thu, May 06, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #330

burkaman wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

The first link is not a credible worry. Ad targeting is not even close to 100% accurate, no ad can out you. You can just brush it off. Links 2 and 3 are concerning. The FB and Google do have a way to stop that though - you can click an ad and say it doesn't interest you or you don't like it, that signal is insanely strong and the platforms will turn off the spigot. The rest is not actual harm to people, its people co…

Are you saying the Fair Housing Act is pointless? Violating it does not harm anyone and there's no reason to enforce it?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#334

Post by lucasnortj » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

it's almost as if this guy has been asleep for the last decade and hasn't realised that the attention economy driven by the ad revenue model is destroying civilisation. I don't really care as humanity isn't worth saving.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#335

Post by UncleMeat » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #41

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 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…

In the span of just a few comments in the thread below, I've seen people claim that the ethical problem is:

1. All ads in general.

2. Targeted advertisement, regardless of the privacy implications.

3. Data collection for targeted advertisement.

4. Data collection for anything.

5. Whether or not users consent to all of the above.

So I don't really think it is fair for anybody to insist that there is a single agreed upon actual ethical problem in web advertising.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#336

Post by jjj1232 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

noir_lord wrote: post #239

jjj1232 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stalking is the problem, but the ads are too. Ads have been a problem well before tracking was a thing. Since at least the 1920s (I’m thinking of Edward Bernays but there are probably earlier examples) the goal of advertising is to manipulate consumers into making irrational decisions. The majority of ads make us feel inadequate to get us to buy something, like the only the thing that will make us whole is a new…

> The majority of ads make us feel inadequate to get us to buy something I know it's hard to disprove but I don't think adverts have that effect on me, partially it's because I don't see many adverts and partly because that kind of blatant manipulation is so hilariously blatant. I acknowledge that someone might be running a really effective advertising campaign on me but since I basically don't buy anything I don't a…

I’m going to conflate packaging with advertising here but I think it’s the same idea and a little easier to visualize:

Our cogniitive biases act as shortcuts to save energy when making decisions, and advertisers exploit those shortcuts. If you’re on high alert while shopping, catching and recalibrating for your biases at every step of the way then yeah you can probably escape most marketing but for most people that doesn’t come naturally.

If you’re not careful I bet you too slip up sometimes. I know I’ve caught myself at the grocery store reaching for one product over another just because it’s in unbleached cardboard packaging (signaling to me that it’s somehow more local or organic or whatever).

These tricks become obvious when you consciously work through them (ex: obviously some megacorp can package their items in cardboard the same way mom and pop small businesses can) but most of the time we aren’t processing consciously, and that’s how marketing works.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#337

Post by smsm42 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

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…

Short term yes, not paying for things feels better than paying for things. Long term, we end up in the situation when most people recognize current model leads to gross distortions, perverse initiatives, and many sites being next to unusable.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#338

Post by cm2012 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #333

cm2012 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first link is not a credible worry. Ad targeting is not even close to 100% accurate, no ad can out you. You can just brush it off. Links 2 and 3 are concerning. The FB and Google do have a way to stop that though - you can click an ad and say it doesn't interest you or you don't like it, that signal is insanely strong and the platforms will turn off the spigot. The rest is not actual harm to people, its people co…

Are you saying the Fair Housing Act is pointless? Violating it does not harm anyone and there's no reason to enforce it?

FB does enforce the fair housing act and other laws. The platform is actually quite strict nowadays and catches lots of innocent ads in their filters for protected categories. Ad platforms should follow the law, that's working as planned.

As a side note, it's funny how people say that ads are terrible, but also its terrible if certain groups of people don't get to see ads.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#339

Post by djoldman » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

I find it interesting how ethics seems to play a large part in the discussion about ads and big tech in general on HN.

Putting aside the privacy and PII concerns, it seems like there is a large contingent of HN'ers who are uncomfortable with the idea that websites/apps are addictive or manipulative or otherwise take advantage of flaws in human nature. For instance: we like shiny things with lots of colors/movement, we generally leave things on default, we engage with hate/dissent more readily than other things, etc.

Many HN'ers seem to be uncomfortable with this even if the people using these websites/apps are adults.

This seems to fly directly in the face of another seemingly wide-held opinion: that the rights of an individual to make their own choices should not be abridged, regardless of what those choices are, who they are, what they believe in, etc. as long as they are adults.

I wonder how these two beliefs coexist although perhaps I've misread the room.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#340

Post by SirSourdough » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #324

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…

>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 collection of personal information). Most people have no issue with the collection of personal information in itself. They only start caring when others start to make money off of it. If Google completely got rid of ads as a revenue source and still made the exact…

There’s probably truth to that but I think it stems from what seems to be a quite commonly held opinion that ads are hostile to humans. They clutter our browsing and viewing experiences, not to mention our physical world. They use malicious tactics to steal our attention from what we would otherwise choose for ourselves. And the industry spends vast physical and intellectual resources which could almost certainly be spent in a more beneficial / less societally harmful way.

So it’s hardly a surprise to me that people see it as ok for Google to use their information to provide them a service like routing, but disapprove of their using that data to enable an industry they see as harmful. I don’t think the problem is exclusively that Google makes money but rather that they make money as the kingpin of an industry most people feel negatively impacts their lives.