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

501–510 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#501

Post by joshuamorton »

thrwaeasddsaf wrote: post #395
discmonkey wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're missing that content creators (whether they be small or large) need to be able to subsist off of their work.

This is especially true if we want high quality content. So the dichotomy is only false if you assume people are willing to accept "stop consuming content" which, by and large, they aren't.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#502

Post by theptip »

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).…

In your ethical framework, are all attempts at persuading someone to change their behavior unethical? What advocacy/awareness increasing behaviors are ethically acceptable?

What if an ad is for a product that someone wants, and is beneficial to them by helping them find a product they were not aware of?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#503

Post by mbesto »

falcolas wrote: post #424
mbesto wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if they did not change our behavior? If we'd do something naturally, there would be no need for ads in the first place. How would you find a USB charger brand if you were unaware of any to begin with? > Why do folks trust some brands, and not others? So then why even have a brand to begin with? Are you suggesting we just ban all advertising altogether? When you start a new company, new market, new idea, then what w…

There is a vast world of difference between putting out to the public "I sell X" and following you around the internet to auctioning a consumer's eyeballs to the highest ad bidder. Or intentionally changing your behavior with their ads (the toothpaste one being the simplest to understand). Trying to conflate the two as equivalent when someone says "ads are toxic" in the context of the online ad industry is doing the…

> Why search for a brand, and not a high quality, well reviewed USB charger?

This is where you lost me. You assume:

1. There is a free service that allows you to search products. PS - it's called Google/Amazon.

2. There is a free service that allows you to read product reviews. PS - it's called Google/Amazon.

> To use the original example, googling for "good USB charger" and then buying one via an ad will not give you any guarantees that the USB charger is good.

And please do tell me, where does this perfect search capability exist in the world that allows one to search for goods and services free from all advertising.

Even a Turkish Bazaar merchant will tell you that the tube of toothpaste they're selling you last only a month.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#504

Post by fastball »

kingsuper20 wrote: post #61

The online ad business generally mystifies me. While an awful lot of the internet, especially the surveillance advertising part, looks to be the greatest misallocation of engineering (and other) talent in the history of the world, ya gotta ask about the efficacy. The only reasonably accurate targeting I've ever run into is the occasional ad for something I just browsed on Amazon. I've never clicked on an internet ad.…

Generally yes but Instagram ads are somehow amazingly well-targeted towards me.

Literally every ad I say to myself "wow, that is actually something I would consider buying" and in certain instances, I have. Outside of Instagram it is exceedingly rare that I would purchase something based on an ad.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#505

Post by omginternets »

dnissley wrote: post #307
omginternets wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now take us through the individual and collective consequences of mass data collection. You seem to be deliberately focusing on the beneficial parts of advertising, at the exclusion of the harmful bits. If you want to maintain your credibility -- let alone give the impression of someone striving to live ethically -- you'll need to give that second part its due attention. Addendum: If I were offered a generous salary…

Let's talk about the individual and collective consequences of mass data collection. Are you saying you know something about those? Do tell! Maybe I'm just terribly dense, but I seriously can't think of any reasonable objection to what google does. The best I personally can come up with is that most people don't understand what google is doing and if they did know some of them might object. When I google "the individ…

>Let's talk about the individual and collective consequences of mass data collection. Are you saying you know something about those? Do tell!

Yes, let's. I'm not an expert, so I don't have any insight. Do you?

Still, this question seems like an essential part of essay about the ethics of working in the ad industry.

Perhaps you meant to direct your sarcasm towards the author?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#506

Post by bozzcl »

falcolas wrote: post #424
mbesto wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if they did not change our behavior? If we'd do something naturally, there would be no need for ads in the first place. How would you find a USB charger brand if you were unaware of any to begin with? > Why do folks trust some brands, and not others? So then why even have a brand to begin with? Are you suggesting we just ban all advertising altogether? When you start a new company, new market, new idea, then what w…

There is a vast world of difference between putting out to the public "I sell X" and following you around the internet to auctioning a consumer's eyeballs to the highest ad bidder. Or intentionally changing your behavior with their ads (the toothpaste one being the simplest to understand). Trying to conflate the two as equivalent when someone says "ads are toxic" in the context of the online ad industry is doing the…

> Why search for a brand, and not a high quality, well reviewed USB charger?

Tangent, but damn I wish reviews were reliable nowadays. They've fallen to deceitful practices like fake reviews, and are no better than advertising nowadays.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#507

Post by qPM9l3XJrF »

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…

"conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems (e.g. large-scale collection of personal information)."

Did you read the section starting from "This model has some major drawbacks from a privacy perspective"?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#508

Post by smsm42 »

I notice immediately two main points are wrong:

> Minimal friction.

Fair enough when the site had one ad. Pretty much no site had one ad now. They have lots of them, which is significantly slowing down loading the page. And if you add all tracking and surveillance code, it can inflate a simple site into megabytes of data. There are common sites that load literally hundreds of outside URLs for ad and surveillance mechanics.

Which brings us to point 2:

> Non-regressive. Paywalls, like other fixed costs, are regressive

Ad costs are regressive too - if you have weak computer and low bw connection, if your connection is unstable or expensive, if your only internet device is a mobile phone with less than excellent bandwidth - which is commonly the case in low income communities - then the last thing you want is to be hit with megabytes of ad data which have zero relationship to what you want to get. Of course, for people sitting on optical gigabit networks with latest-greatest hardware their employer paid for is not much of a problem...

If it was just a paid service, you could work out a deal - maybe it could be cheaper for your country, or have some kind of library or per-provider setup that could make it easier for you to get to it - but you don't have this option, it's megabytes of ad everywhere.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#509

Post by qPM9l3XJrF »

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…

"Targeting based on content fundemenally allows everyone access to ad content."

Can you be more precise about what you mean and why the current system doesn't have it? You're saying that everyone should see ads, even ads they won't like? Forgive me if this isn't a hill I'm interested in dying on.

"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)."

Not in a meaningful way. If the ads are generated automatically based on the content, the site might not have much to do with it. Example: Suppose there's a wedding planning site, and a content-based targeting system notices the word "bride" on the site a lot and serves mail order bride ads. Yes, you could avoid the wedding planning site because of this, but is there any reason to punish them? It's not their fault.

"If I get targeted by content independent targeted ads, it can be almsot impossible to avoid those Ads as they will follow you everywhere you go."

Isn't there a menu that lets you select "I don't want to see this ad"?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#510

Post by dang »

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…

You can't attack someone else like that on this site. Perhaps you don't feel that you owe $person better, but you do owe this community, which you're part of, better.

Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully in the future—without flamebait or name-calling.

The underlying point about charity is a fine one, by the way—but personally attacking the author is not fine.

Post reply on HN