Why I Work on Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#371

Post by mhb » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

aaroninsf wrote: post #347

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…

Here is a genuine question, if one I cannot help but deliver in an acid tone: what does it mean to be a "decent" person, if one is willfully, or disingenuously, ignorant of participation in an unethical system? Decent is a stand-in for ethical; this is a contradiction at a logical level, but to answer my own question, in contemporary American culture, not least in the readership of HN, there is disturbing dance betwe…

He is a decent person by at least a consequentialist definition - that the harm of ads (if any) due to him is offset by the amount of salary he is able to devote to doing good in the world.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#372

Post by publiccharity » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

dont__panic wrote: post #361

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…

I get really annoyed when folks like Gates, Bezos, Bloomberg, etc. trumpet all of the money they've donated to charity efforts (that conveniently often end up putting their name all over the place for extra mindshare/reputation). Of course it's amazing that these folks donate billions of dollars! But they also hoard tens of billions of dollars in investment accounts, stock, multiple homes... so is it really much of a…

Who Would Win?

The common ethic of humility forged over millennia

OR

One Cambridge ads boi

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#373

Post by HWR_14 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

defaultname wrote: post #246

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…

But ads are the problem. Ads are the robbery of your time and attention. On a screen they steal screen real estate, consume CPU cycles, consume bandwidth, etc. And all of the stalking and tracking is a direct consequence of ads themselves, further cementing ads as the problem. One of the other replies note that podcasts do ads right. I hugely disagree. Not only does it steal the listener's time and focus (presuming t…

Many of the primary use-cases for podcasts (exercising/driving/doing chores) don't put people in a position where they have the free hands to scrub past the ads.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#374

Post by elwell » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

NilsIRL wrote: post #134

It's not because it's funded by advertising that it's cheaper for the user, in the end, the consumer pays for the advertising when they purchase something

Unless publicity created by advertising enables economies of scale lowering unit cost.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#375

Post by HWR_14 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #154

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…

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

Sure. FB knows your ethnicity. In violation of US federal law, this information is used to show you different apartment ads. This makes it harder for black people to live in integrated communities.

Similar things happen with jobs and ethnicity, jobs and gender, with jobs and age discrimination, etc.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#376

Post by yubiox » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

You don't address the issues that most ads are scams and it is possible to accidentally click ads. I recently asked google for directions to a new (to me) dentist while on vacation in Hawaii. As I started driving to the other side of the island I realized maps not taking me to the right town. Turns out apparently another dentist somehow made a scam ad so if you search for directions to the correct dentist it takes you to the scammer dentist instead. This is just one example of many. Screw ads and those who enable them.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#377

Post by shanecleveland » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

defaultname wrote: post #93

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…

There are many, many cases where users choose pay options over `free'-but-ad-supported options. The pay options usually have a better/more honest financial model, and more aligned interests with their users. And there certainly is a universe where we would pay for search, in the same way that we pay for countless other things. Google's business model scorched Earth the realm, though, so there isn't a lot of potential…

I suspect most people's attitudes towards ads are more nuanced than either "I am fine with ads" vs. "I am not fine with ads." And, frankly, most web users probably just don't understand how ad tracking works, rather than being Laissez-faire.

I understand it pretty well. I pay for a variety of services for the value they provide me and to ensure they remain viable. I use a lot of free, ad-supported tools without an ad-blocker.

I make a small amount of money from ad-supported sites. I make more money from user-supported sites.

I tend to be more concerned with the user experience. I don't mind ads that don't get in the way of my intent for using a tool or site. I have backed out of many sites that show me more ads than content, especially if presented in a way that make them more likely to be clicked accidentally than out of actual interest. They loose me as a user. That's a choice I get to make.

I enjoy physical magazines (or digital versions of physical magazines). I pay for several subscriptions, but I know they are making much more money from advertising. I wouldn't pay more for a version without ads. I like many of the ads. They are well-targeted and visually appealing. But I am free to ignore them and I am free to stop subscribing if the advertising diminishes the value I get from it.

Ad-supported sites are important to the ecosystem. Can they be done better? Yes! Can we make choices as consumers as to whether or not we patronize a site based on their advertising behavior? Yes! Ad blockers may play a role in that. Perhaps both will help push the industry in a more privacy-centric direction.

Privacy is more commonly seen as a feature these days. I have a few services I promote as both free and privacy-focused; no ads, no or minimal analytics, etc. And with enough interest I would hope to eventually charge for them to make them sustainable without ads.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#378

Post by burkaman » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #338

burkaman wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same as saying that the draft is terrible, but having a gender-specific draft is even worse. We'd rather have no ads, but until that's possible, the least we can do is stop them from worsening social inequities.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#379

Post by yissp » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #69

mdavis6890 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - but I find that strange. Most of us are not angry about the pay model for groceries or haircuts. A smaller - but still large - fraction of us are okay paying for other zero-marginal-cost goods like software as well. I wonder why we are so attached to free content online. Maybe because of the historical television model that's been mentally transferred to the internet?

Its just the fact that people are used to free content, so the idea of paying for it is foreign. If groceries used to be free, but suddenly cost money, people would riot.

See also this Planet Money episode about formerly-free doughnuts. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-...

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#380

Post by sfink » Thu, May 06, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

whitepaint wrote: post #149

isoskeles wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs are not necessarily good for society, nor are cheaper goods. We could have dirt cheap asbestos and cigarettes, that's not good for society. We can have billions of jobs making and filling dirt holes, that's also not good for society. That aside, the effectiveness of ads are orthogonal to the quality or "good"-ness of jobs and products. They just seem, to me, like more of an amoral thing that can be used to sell…

Free markets don't work like that. We would only be having billions of jobs filling dirt holes if it produced more value to the society than it extracted it from.

No, we would have those jobs if they produced more value to whoever is asking for those holes to be dug.

And that's the reality we presently live in. It's not holes, it's watching ads and reading things that aren't worth our time and buying things that don't provide us value. Click on a link, dig a hole. Read the mindless alarm-inducing article, fill the hole in.