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

481–490 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#481

Post by NicoJuicy »

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…

If search wouldn't be free out ad-supported. Paying for it would be the biggest productivity boost for a developer.

But people don't like to pay for software. So we alternatives.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#482

Post by annoyingnoob »

The collection, cataloging, and storage of personal data is the issue. We can have effective ads without constantly looking over everyone's shoulder and documenting what they do. But obviously, the author sees this data collection as beneficial, I respectfully disagree. I left advertising because I didn't like what I could see on the backend.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#483

Post by fastball »

shkkmo wrote: post #454
burkaman wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, that was not clear from the essay, and honestly might change my opinion a little. Is your position "targeted ads cause harmful privacy violations, but my work is exclusively devoted to reducing the privacy impact, so I don't believe my work is harmful"? If so I would encourage you to edit the essay, because that's not at all how it comes across right now, at least to readers who aren't familiar with your work. I…

IMHO, that work is still actively harmful since it seeks to provide political cover for a fundementally harmful activity.

If privacy is not being violated, how is the activity fundamentally harmful?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#484

Post by lupire »

mateo411 wrote: post #394
safog wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And the subscription is mostly next they lost ads! Traditionally subscription fees pay for the printing and ads pay for the content.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#485

Post by fastball »

shkkmo wrote: post #448
jefftk wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only ethical way of targeting is content relevance Why?

Targeting based on content fundemenally allows everyone access to ad content. It makes content providers more responsible for the Ads they carry. It allows me to avoid sites that show me bad Ads (such as mail order brides). Targeting Ads based on anything else is invasive, discriminatory, and enables even higher levels of manipulation. If I get targeted by content independent targeted ads, it can be almsot impossible…

Speak for yourself.

Instagram gives me fantastically targeted ads, and I appreciate that.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#486

Post by yosito »

samfisher83 wrote: post #84

According to the sec disclosures the 3 highest paying tech companies are Google, Splunk, and Facebook. They all happen to be among the 10 best paying public companies in America. 2 of the 3 are almost completely funded by ad money.

I'm surprised that I've never heard of Splunk. I tried to understand the company's core business model, but I couldn't get past all the buzz words on their website.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#487

Post by earthboundkid »

elliekelly wrote: post #88
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 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…

Frame I have used on HN many times:

Many people have a favorite TV ads. People watch the Super Bowl for the ads. People sing radio jingles to themselves. College kids put nice magazine ads on their dorm walls. People pay money for clothes with logos that are essentially just ads for themselves. People watch videos of influencers unboxing/using/reviewing products they are paid to unbox/use/review. Etc. People love all kinds of ads.

No one likes banner ads. It is failed ad format and should be replaced. No one likes direct targeting. It should be made illegal. There are lots of other ad formats and methods that work great. Those two are the problem.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#488

Post by theptip »

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, maybe your actions are evil?

You’re way off base here. The author links to the Effective Altruism page on “giving to earn” one link deep in: https://www.jefftk.com/donations

This is a well established concept, the idea is that in many life situations you can maximize your positive impact by taking a well-paying job and putting that money into charity.

So the arrow of causation is the opposite to what you are claiming; starting with the desire to give to charity, what job optimizes the amount that can be given?

It’s disheartening to see the cynicism that is being directed towards someone that is transparently advocating for making the world a better place, and taking the time to put their thinking in public to seek feedback on it.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#489

Post by earthboundkid »

mrblampo wrote: post #171
the_snooze wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The ads. Aren't. The problem. The stalking is. Exactly. If you want online ads done right, look no further than how podcasts do it. The medium doesn't allow for stalking. Podcast producers often stake their own reputation by voicing the ads themselves. That editorial freedom lets them be creative and respectful of their audiences. And advertisers can use podcast-specific coupon codes to attribute ad campaigns to sal…

> The medium doesn't allow for stalking. Huh. Are you sure? I don't know anything about how podcast advertising works, but it sounds like you're assuming the full audio track, complete with ads, is the same everywhere and always.

Traditionally, podcasts worked like radio and everyone got the same ad. Recently, people have been trying to "innovate" by ruining podcasts like how the web was ruined and use dynamic ad insertion. AFAICT, it still hasn't totally caught on yet. Anecdotally, I used to hear it on one of my shows, but then they changed networks and it went away.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#490

Post by upheaval7276 »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #458
bogwog wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tend to agree with Bill Hicks on the subject of advertising and those who work in the industry: https://genius.com/Bill-hicks-on-advertisers-and-marketing-a...

Very ironic that I had to scroll through an ad midway through that article.
Post reply on HN