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

431–440 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#431

Post by [deleted] »

jefftk wrote: post #125
fouric wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all more user hostile for my use cases Why are these user-hostile? I see very little friction to any of them - $10/year YT subscription disappears into the background (that's, what, two moderately expensive coffee drinks? if you spend just a single day watching educational content, the obtained value will easily exceed $10), per-search microtransactions would be so cheap that you could just turn on the "always tran…

> It's easy, from a technical perspective, to design a low-friction microtransaction system. Oh? People have been trying since at least https://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/246/ (1995)

[deleted]

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#432

Post by Nasrudith »

Justsignedup wrote: post #211
jefftk wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this may have been an opportunity for OP to provide some insight into how the adtech market is evolving, and make the case that it is headed in an ethical direction. He did not There's a section of post with "build browser APIs that will allow this kind of well-targeted advertising without sending your browsing history to advertisers, and then get rid of third-party cookies"; I'm curious what you think of it?

I personally am of the opinion that "targeted advertising" _is_ the problem. Random generic advertising is fine. It isn't as profitable but it doesn't exploit a person's mental weaknesses. Targeted advertising is straight up exploitation. Kids being bombarded with ads for plastic surgery nonestop on TikTok, radicalized individuals being targeted with fear-based ads. This is super toxic. And while advertising is a tal…

Those parade of horribles raise an awkward question - couldn't the lack of targetting of advertising make it even worse in several senses? We had the "punch the monkey/click here for viruses" in the past instead to monetize general targets when it was more niche. People forget /why/ Google won web advertising like they did.

The "badness" of the ads results from the selecting function and what becomes sustainable and favored. Infamously with spam and phone calls it can include outright crime.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#433

Post by fsflover »

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?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24719416

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#434

Post by ashtonbaker »

joshuamorton wrote: post #421
BCM43 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you draw the difference between an ad and not an ad? If it's paid promotion, it's an ad. If the doctor's doing this only because they think it's in my best interest, it's not. The FTC already has some pretty clear guidelines on this because ads are required to be clearly marked as such in many cases.

I guess I should clarify in the context of this discussion, we're defining ads as >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 In this context, a doctor making a recommendation to use a particular…

Even with the narrow definition, you missed:

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

A dentist recommending that I use more toothpaste may change my behavior, but not in a detrimental way. If the dentist is paid to make the same recommendation, it's more difficult to say whether they made the recommendation purely out of my best interest, so the definition begins to apply again.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#435

Post by antasvara »

falcolas wrote: post #210
jnwatson wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But so is essentially all interaction with your environment. Every interaction you have with essentially everyone might change your behavior. The only difference is the scale. The problem is that the power of targeted advertising has been democratized (irony intended) to allow everyone to do it. It is capable enough that it can end peaceful democracies.

> But so is essentially all interaction with your environment My every interaction with my environment doesn't involve millions of trained professionals bent to the sole purpose of influencing my actions. Outside of ads, that is.

Might be a difference of opinion, but what do you propose as an alternative to funding free things like news sites, videos on the internet, and even cable television channels.

I'm not saying that ads are particularly ethical, but I struggle to think of a replacement that isn't more paywalls. This is an easy decision to make for people that have the money, but is much harder for the majority of Americans. A Vox article [1] estimates that this would add an average of $35 a month, assuming every US adult paid this cost (which is a bold assumption).

[1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/24/18715421/internet-free-...

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#436

Post by HWR_14 »

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…

> Would I rather replay history and pay ~$120 every year (~$2400 ?) to search for web articles? No.

But that's an outrageous sum. I'm sure you also wouldn't sacrifice your first-born son on Google's altar either. Meanwhile, would you pay $5-10/year ($100-$200 total)? That would probably cut Google's revenue by two-thirds - one-third, but still they would have plenty. I believe FB averaged under $10/year/active user in all the years I looked at (which ignores the most recent years).

Meanwhile, I guess I'll just leave my adblocker installed and take the subsidy.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#437

Post by mateo411 »

cm2012 wrote: post #275
twox2 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO these are weak examples. - Are you suggesting that your friend got divorced so that she could sell her ring, because an ad told her she could sell her ring? I doubt that was the straw that broke the camels back. - The android phone has utility beyond it's addictiveness. Yes homeless people need a phone. - Re fusion centers: ads targeting data is a relatively shitty surveillance too, the three letter agencies have…

Agreed on all of this, + Facebook and Google both ban images of alcohol on their ad networks. Even someone holding a glass of wine.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. As a counter example I've seen ads for alcohol and bars in my Facebook feed.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#438

Post by cm2012 »

fsflover wrote: post #433
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?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24719416

That has nothing to do with ads, Google would turn that over even if sub supported.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#439

Post by cm2012 »

intergalplan wrote: post #397
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?

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…

The government doesn't go to fb when it wants someone's website history. It goes right to the ISPs.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#440

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

izacus wrote: post #398
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? :)

The quality of the advertisements I see hocking the wares of blue chip and f500 companies. :D
Post reply on HN