Why I Work on Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#511

Post by dang » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:16 PM UTC

notsobig wrote: post #97

Not only do you spend your day job helping to clutter our web experience, suck up our personal data, and track us across the web, but you want to spend your free time whoring out your blog to us to try to justify the career choice you feel guilty about? Just stop. We get one chance on earth, do something of value.

Please don't post denunciatory rhetoric to HN. It's the most tedious thing on the internet, and we're trying for something at least a little bit better here.

Lord knows there are loads of problems to worry about, but damaging the community you're participating in is counterproductive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#512

Post by kapp_in_life » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:16 PM UTC

stevenicr wrote: post #193

cm2012 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any evidence of anyone hurt by the large scale collection of personal data by Google and FB.

small data points from here compared to the big lot.. friend unsure about her marriage.. getting ads to sell her wedding ring via fbook.. they divorced 2 months later. Guess what the first thing she did was? A friend's father.. gambling addiction and an android phone - sleeps on the streets and eats via dumpsters, still keeps that addictive android device running. Google sending data on people to fusion centers.. may…

Facebook at least lets you opt out of alcohol advertisements, its buried somewhere in your ad preferences settings.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#513

Post by the_snooze » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:16 PM UTC

earthboundkid wrote: post #487

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…

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…

People like well-made thoughtful creative ads. Algorithmic targeting misses the point completely. It's the human element that doesn't scale that's valuable.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#514

Post by justinboogaard » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:16 PM UTC

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…

You (me, all of us) are (indirectly) paying for Google ads in the same way that we are (indirectly) paying for merchant credit card processing fees. If you paid for search, some businesses might be able to lower the cost of their products because they don’t have to pay for advertising.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#515

Post by kapp_in_life » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:16 PM UTC

mateo411 wrote: post #437

cm2012 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can opt out of alcohol ads on Facebook at least. Its somewhere in your ad preferences

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#516

Post by echlebek » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

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…

Your idea about paying a yearly subscription vs having advertising presents a false dichotomy. Since the internet is a public good, search functionality could be reasonably delivered for cents on the dollar by a public utility.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#517

Post by dang » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:19 PM UTC

sloshnmosh wrote: post #264

The late great Bill Hicks perfectly summarized my feelings towards advertisers/marketers. There is nothing wrong with ads per-say, it is the real time bidding and targeted ads that I have problems with. And of course malvertising such as the one which compromised my sisters laptop with a fileless rootkit a few years back. Ads and analytics are not allowed on my home network.

Pretty sure Bill thought there was something wrong with ads per se. No?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#518

Post by version_five » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:23 PM UTC

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…

I don't think you could expect people to start paying by page for the "content" on the web as it is now after 25 years of evolution under an ad funded model.

People pay for an internet connection, and e.g. will pay more to get a faster connection or higher quota. There is value, its just not in the casual attention model that the ad driven internet has developed. Even the term "browser" implies how we interact with most content, and to me doesn't evoke "I'll pay by the page"

A partial parallel is radio. Would you pay for local FM radio without ads? Unlikely, but some might pay for satellite radio because of the bundled content and national accessibility. And even more would pay for spotify. These are not just the old radio with ads swapped for direct cash, they provide something better. Paid internet will have to be the same.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#519

Post by DogOnTheWeb » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:26 PM UTC

drcongo wrote: post #119

As the person who originally asked "why" I feel like I ought to respond, though much of it is covered by other comments. I used to work in more trad advertising, so my question wasn't so much an objection to working in advertising itself, but specifically Google's version of advertising, which I see as gross overreach into people's personal lives. In other comments people have mentioned YouTube subscriptions as being…

Do you have a position on a better alternative business model, or do you feel that a service like YouTube shouldn't exist?

It seems to me that YouTube and many of the ad-supported services out there provide broad benefits to people, and I am swayed by OPs point that a regressively priced business model which restricts these benefits to the global rich is a greater disservice.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#520

Post by shkkmo » Thu, May 06, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #483

shkkmo wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

See repeated explanations all over this thread.