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

531–540 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#531

Post by tomComb »

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…

Only a couple of years to quit something that blackened your soul? A couple of years is a pretty common amount of time to remain in a job these days.

If I sound judgy there, note that you are condemning a lot of people. Not me, actually, but I still take issue because the basis of your condemnation doesn't even make sense to me...

I think ads are a decent way to pay for a service and I prefer targeted ads to generic ads, especially since they are more effective (and if the idea is to pay for the service you are using, that is relevant).

So the issue is the data, and so the fact that Google has never sold or lost their user's data - you seem to imply otherwise - is extremely relevant, and is why I'm OK with them storing my data. In this industry that is very rare, and yet you consider Google the worst - I'm having a hard time squaring that.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#532

Post by shkkmo »

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #509
shkkmo wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (suc…

You can't simulatously argue that Ads offer value to customers and that limiting access to those Ads to a certain subset of customers doesn't harm them. You have to pick one. There are specific areas (housing discrimination) where the harm is obvious enough that we have been able to gather sufficient support to make this illegal.

> Yes, you could avoid the wedding planning site because of this, but is there any reason to punish them? It's not their fault.

It is absolutely their fault. Content providers should face full responsibility for the Ads they allow to appear on their website.

One of the ways that the current Ad targeting system is awful is that it allows advertisers to pretend to foist this responsibility onto Ad companies that are much more insulated from consumer blow back.

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

Those menus often don't stop other Ads of that type from being shown and there is no legal obligation to do so. All they really do is give the advertiser more information about you.

If the only recourse you have to abusive behavior is to politely ask them to stop, someone is going to keep abusing you to make money.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#533

Post by shkkmo »

fastball wrote: post #485
shkkmo wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm glad you aren't vulnerable to any of the above issues I raise. That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerable and powerless people who are being hurt by this system and your support o it.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#534

Post by version_five »

qsort wrote: post #63
bluefirebrand wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineers building unethical things is wildly different than lawyers defending rapists, because a lawyer defending a rapist is behaving ethically according to their career path. Software engineers agreeing to build awful shit is more like mechanical engineers building weapons. They should know what they are doing is going to cause harm and if they choose to do it anyways I have no issue calling them unethical.

An engineer building effective adtech is similarly behaving ethically according to their own career path. Lawyers effectively defending awful clients, for example, managing to get them off the hook on a technicality, are likewise generating massive negative externalities for society at large. It's either both or neither, and I'm not comfortable going down that path.

> Lawyers effectively defending awful clients, for example, managing to get them off the hook on a technicality, are likewise generating massive negative externalities for society at large.

This is a harmful misunderstanding of how the legal system works. Subjecting laws and procedures to scrutiny, and exposing "loopholes" is exactly the role of a vigorous defence. The fact that the consequences for the state (and society) of miswriting or misapplying the law can be so severe is exactly what keeps the system honest.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#535

Post by jefftk »

ashtonbaker wrote: post #312
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.…

> No doubt there's some sort of backend telemetry that proves the value of all this trouble. And it seems like unless you go to a lot of trouble, you're essentially relying on the ad network's own metrics for efficacy... Which when you consider the sheer quantity of money at stake, seems like it will end in a massive fraud at least once. I could be wrong about the perverse incentive though, it seems almost too obviou…

> unless you go to a lot of trouble, you're essentially relying on the ad network's own metrics for efficacy

There's a whole ecosystem of "buyside verification vendors" that advertisers contract with to validate that they're getting what they paid for. Buyers don't just take the seller's word for it, or at least enough of them don't that shady sellers are kept in check.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#536

Post by double0jimb0 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #288
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.…

I wouldn't be surprised if Adwords is a net loss for the majority of Google's customers. The whole thing is full of dark patterns. Personally I got so fed up with the abusive nature of it that I abandoned it several years ago.

I like to think of google ads the IRS of the internet. I pay my ad agency to minimize my google ads tax, not to grow business, same instructions I give to my tax accountant. Google will argue that everyone wins if you grow and pay more google tax, but many have tested this and proved it not to be true. Said another way, how good of a job your tax accountant is doing is orthogonal to growing your business.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#537

Post by falcolas »

theptip wrote: post #502
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?

> are all attempts at persuading someone to change their behavior unethical

Same answer as a sibling comment. It's unethical to take advantage of a person's psychological blind spots or weaknesses to turn a profit.

> What if an ad is for a product that someone wants

Do they want it prior to viewing the ad? If not, the ad is creating a psychological desire for something not previously needed or wanted.

Or did they pull a trick like a sibling commenter called out - searching for "good USB drive" and providing an ad. The ad takes advantage of being shown in response to a keywords that implies a level of quality of the product that isn't substantiated. There's no technical reviews that demonstrate that it's good, or even suitable to the task at hand. The only thing that actually sets it apart is how much was paid to put it in front of the searcher's eyes.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#538

Post by joefkelley »

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 you buy youtube premium you'll very likely see more ads for youtube premium

Really? I have youtube premium and I can't recall seeing ads for it. Why would they advertise a product to people that already have that product?

> 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.

FWIW, this flag already exists, except you don't have to do micropayments: https://adssettings.google.com/

I guess you still see ads with this setting, they're just not personalized. Hypothetically you could imagine a "stronger" setting that doesn't just do away with personalization, it does away with ads altogether by allowing the user to "outbid" any advertiser. But I suspect there will be some surprised users who get a bill for hundreds of dollars by doing some particularly high-value searches like "personal injury lawyer" or "mortgage" or something.

And if it were a flat rate, my intuition is that the fee would have to be much higher than most would expect or be willing to pay.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#540

Post by KptMarchewa »

fastball wrote: post #504
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.

I'm in the same boat, and think it's just that I don't see any typical big advertiser ads like FMCG companies, whereas the traditional media is full of them.

On the other side there are Google Play ads with mouth open guys - I'm never going to play one of those vile games, ever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/cv4ezs/mouth...

Post reply on HN