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

391–400 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#391

Post by zelphirkalt »

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…

> I've been using Google Search for over 20 years for free which is pretty amazing. Would I rather replay history and pay ~$120 every year (~$2400 ?) to search for web articles? No.

And that is the point, where I would say: "No, you have not been using Google for free. You have paid with something. That something is your personal data and privacy of others."

Why privacy of others? Well, because by using Google, you are actually supporting their business model, which is online stalking and selling info about you basically.

If no one was using their search (and other services), then what would be the point for businesses to throw money at them for placing ads there? Every user counts in the end. Many people keep thinking, that they alone will not make any difference, but that is, where people go wrong in many scenarios. The typical: "But if only I do x then it wont be so bad." or "If only I stop doing x, it wont change the big picture." If everyone thinks that way, then nothing ever will change of course. It is a feedback loop, or vicious cycle, or whatever it is called. The right idea is to start doing, what one can do oneself. And that is to stop using services such as Google search.

Personally, if I had the choice between paying money every year to have a non-stalker Internet search for the whole world, ensuring everyone's privacy when searching, I would rather choose that Internet. I would prefer it over an Internet, which we have today, where I need to arm up my browser to the teeth, to avoid being tracked everywhere, being unable to access a lot of content, because knowingly or unknowingly people put it behind stalker-walls and paywalls. I also think that your suggested numbers of 120 or even 2400$ are wildly exaggerated. It would probably be much more like an Internet tax, that everyone had to pay and that is lowered or increased based on your personal economical situation.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#392

Post by burkaman »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #343
burkaman wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't asking you "why do you choose to work on ads rather than not work at all", they're asking "why do you work on ads rather than a different area". In that context, the fact that you work to donate is not relevant, since you could switch to a different area and continue to donate.

Few areas pay as well, and someone's gonna do it. This is a rational way to maximize his capacity to influence his world as much as possible. Let's not blame engineers for what is effectively a political issue. If ads are an issue, let's get the law to handle it.

Engineers are not somehow separate from society. When you say "let's get the law to handle it", that "us" includes engineers. Politics is just people, including engineers, figuring out how to organize society.

If you think something is wrong, the first step is to not do it. If you think it's so wrong it should be illegal, you can take the optional second step of trying to change the law.

There are some circumstances where you think something is wrong, but not doing it would be impossible or require really drastic life changes. For example, maybe you think driving a gas-powered car is wrong because it contributes to climate change, but you can't afford to buy an electric car or move somewhere that doesn't require a car. This is not one of those cases. The author has 10 years of experience at Google and could easily find a very well paying job either at another department inside Google, or at another company.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#393

Post by fauigerzigerk »

oulipo wrote: post #238
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 problem is that ads are not free. It's paid. And it's paid by you. When you say "I'm using Google for free because it's supported by ads", what it means is: - some companies are buying (expensive) ads on Google - they are therefore increasing their marketing budget - which mechanically increases the price of their services and products - which you ultimately have to pay so no, the "free ads" are not free for the…

True, but by the same logic, how much each of us pays for ad funded services depends on how much each of us can spend. I.e. wealthy people pay more per Google search than poor people.

And there's another issue. Even if all online services switched to a subscription model tomorrow, companies would not suddenly stop spending money on promoting their products. They would just do it differently and we would pay twice.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#394

Post by mateo411 »

safog wrote: post #317
ksec wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In other words, I see no fresh insight and perspective in jefftk's writing, May be I am living in my bubble, but most of the site I visit, mostly mainstream media news in tech, along with most of the social media post, has a flat out dismissal of Ads in general. So while ads works to pay for X isn't a "fresh" insight, it was never really pointed out ( enough ) in most of the discussions. If the discussion in general…

> May be I am living in my bubble, but most of the site I visit, mostly mainstream media news in tech, along with most of the social media post, has a flat out dismissal of Ads in general. I'd apply the same logic here: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Ad supported models on news paper websites have nearly killed publications like NYTimes. A…

NY Times also has inventory for digital advertising. If you read it on the app in your phone, you will see ads. If you view it in a browser, with ad blocker turned off, you will see ads. Their revenue also comes from a subscription model, but they also sells ads.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#395

Post by thrwaeasddsaf »

discmonkey wrote: post #364
thrwaeasddsaf wrote: post #124

For me the first big disagreement begins with asking for what's the alternative. I don't think there needs to be an alternative. I think ads are largely responsible for the sorry state of the seo spammed web where finding what you want can be a complete nightmare. (It costs almost nothing to run a website, and if you spam enough ~zero cost sites loaded with ads and affiliate links, you can probably make a buck. This…

Just to add a little data from personal experience... About 4 years back I ran a small study in grad school where I was trying to find some alternative to ads. For a survey I basically asked "how much would you be willing to pay to view websites without ads". I bucketed the responses to something along the lines of greater than $1, $.75, $.5, $.25, $.01 or nothing. What I was (secretly) hoping was that people would b…

> Point being it really seems like people have decided/agreed that they prefer the ad model to anything else.

I'm not sure how you mean this but what you say comes dangerously close to implying that people want ads. That may be true if you force them into a false dichotomy (pay or have ads).

I think it's more just that people don't want to pay. If it's on the web, they read it for free, period. If it's not on the web, then it isn't and they don't read it. If you look at it from this perspective, ads aren't even part of the discussion. I think people prefer the "someone pays for it" model to anything else.

The dichotomy is only real if you construct a hypothetical scenario about some ad-or-paywall site that absolutely must exist and that people absolutely want to read and for which no alternative can emerge if that site stops existing.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#396

Post by zaat »

dado3212 wrote: post #311
anchpop wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family pays for youtube premium ( https://www.youtube.com/premium/family ), it's $18/month for 5 people. They also get access to "youtube music premium", which is basically a spotify clone (so unlimited music with no ads). It's quite a good deal imo

Yeah, this option exists and most people don’t take it. Pretty clear argument against this model.

No it isn't, it means I pay to see those videos without ads, but I have to be logged in and they get to track me.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#397

Post by intergalplan »

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?

The collection is per se harmful as long as warrants exist.

Beyond that, it's an open secret (as in: it's been mentioned several times in available documents, but never deliberately disclosed or extensively discussed publicly, so far as I know) that since at least the mid or late 00s the US government has had contracts with multiple major tech companies that have a high level of access to citizen Internet traffic to basically search their databases of Internet activity at will. Which companies these are, I'm not sure—I suspect it's mostly telcos, personally—but it's another reason the existence of these datasets is inherently dangerous, and that they should not be permitted to exist at all, no matter who holds them.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#398

Post by izacus »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #221
supersrdjan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your most frequently recurring points of criticism and what type of ads you find elicit the least criticism?

That's a question I want to get paid six figures to answer.

What makes you think your criticism is worth paying six figures for? :)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#399

Post by SquareWheel »

bogwog wrote: post #167
crumbshot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a hard time believing the author is unaware of this, so I'm left wondering: why? What was the point of this exercise? I reckon it was mostly a brag about (1) how he earns over half a million dollars a year for inflicting this upon us all and (2) how much more charitable he is than most of the rest of us.

I found it interesting that the first thing he says to defend his work with ads is that he gives money to charity. If you feel like you need to donate to charity to justify your actions, maybe your actions are evil? There has to be some level of guilt involved in that decision, at the very least. Which is to say, I don't blame him for what he does. If someone dangled all that money in my face I can't say I wouldn't b…

>If you feel like you need to donate to charity to justify your actions...

He specifically said he doesn't do that. Did you finish the article?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#400

Post by jefftk »

beloch wrote: post #357

The crux of his justification for what he does is that, he argues, people wouldn't want to pay a monthly fee for services like youtube bundled with complete respect for their privacy. First, users do not currently have that choice. Sure, you can pay for some things (e.g. youtube premium), but it does nothing for your privacy. If you buy youtube premium you'll very likely see more ads for youtube premium (if you're no…

> If a user paid a "Premium Internet" monthly fee, Google Ads could have a flag that turns it's data collection/sharing off and replaces it with micropayments to any site that user visits that are running Google Ads.

It's not exactly what you're describing, but they've tried several (unsuccessful) approaches along these lines with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor

(speaking only for myself)

Post reply on HN