Why I Work on Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#561

Post by jefftk » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:11 PM UTC

bobsomers wrote: post #409

jefftk wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the first thing he says to defend his work with ads is that he gives money to charity The reason that I work (as opposed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_movement ) is so I can donate, which is why I start with that piece of the explanation.

I don't mean to come across as too forward or rude, and freely admit that I know nothing about you personally. Thank you for making such generous contributions to charity! The way I look at it is like so: I think most people want to bring a net positive value to society. One way of doing that is working on something whose intrinsic value to society is neutral or nebulous (or just not thinking about it too hard), and…

Minor aside: I don't live in the Bay Area and I'm really glad not to!

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#562

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:12 PM UTC

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.…

Perhaps it is not so much a question of whether online ads work nor how profitable the business is (or the costs to society of all the surveillance), but instead the question is why the author cannot or will not work on something else. Is the work he does truly valuable in a general sense. This question might help us gauge the veracity of his statements.

If the web were 100% ad-free, it would still exist. It would still be growing. People would still spend countless hours working on computer programming. People would still be endlessly tinkering with the internet. This is reality, I saw it in the 80's and 90's. However, they would not be, as the author is today, asking for forgiveness, pledging to donate half their "earnings" to charity. Online ads may be an efficient way to make money but it also may be the only efficient way to make money from such "work" (experimentation, fun). The folks who are profiting from online ads will say anything to avoid that reality check.

The emperor may indeed be naked, but the amount of money and infrastructure these companies have to bury the truth is enormous. They will not allow the world to ever again experience a web without pervasive advertising. The person who started the web already had a real job. He did not try to make money with online ads. That world was fun while it lasted. There were so many possibilities.

Thanks to this author's "work", the possibilities now appear to be mostly dystopian. Compare this post "Why I work on Ads" to the original paper from Brin and Page that described the influence of advertising on web search as undesirable and a primary motivation for creating Google.

http://research.google.com/pubs/archive/334.pdf

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#563

Post by version_five » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

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…

Most of the time I browse on my phone. If I'm on e.g. HN and I click a link, and I get a 3/4 page cookie notification, or if Intercom pops up a bubble over half the phone, I usually just close the page and don't bother. I think this backs up what you are saying, so much content isnt pay or watch ads, its "I'll glance at it but really I dont care enough about it even to dismiss a popup". This is very different from physical or service purchases. As I said in another comment, its "browsing".

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#564

Post by the8bit » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

jdbernard wrote: post #313

ExtraE wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it won't make them nearly as much money. Yes. That's the problem. Make less money from ads --> make less content/riskier to make content (same thing). The more money ads make, the fewer of them you have to see to fund the same amount of content (or, alternatively, you get more/higher quality content for a given (fixed) quantity of ads).

That's not how it plays out though. More effective/profitable ads does not lead to less ads being shown. In fact, it's the opposite. As ads have become more targeted, and theoretically more profitable according to this argument, we have more of them. There is no set "amount of effectiveness," so to speak. If ads are more profitable, advertisers are still going to spend just as much or more on them, precisely because…

The problem here is really just general flaws in capitalism. The main thing I hate about ads is the broken corporate incentive -- companies want to earn as much as possible and the feedback loop of worse customer experience is weak.

So annoyingly while it is true that ads are a currently necessary part of funding the internet, it is also true that a perverse incentive exists to just keep hammering the $ button once you find a model that works. It is a good argument for why we probably should want to pay directly for content. Or y'know, just topple capitalism on account of it generating toxic localized optimizations literally everywhere.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#565

Post by notJim » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:16 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…

I'm not sure why traditional advertising should get a pass here. Traditional advertising finds whatever fears and insecurities you have and exploits them to sell you stuff. If you're worried you're not manly enough, better buy an $80k truck with at least a V-6. If you're worried you're not a good enough parent, better give your kids some sugary crap. Exploiting people's psychology like this is also an overreach.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#566

Post by simonbarker87 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

TwelveNights wrote: post #525

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've always thought that the value provided was in comparison to old-school advertising techniques, such as through physical media or broadcast-style presentation formats. Nowadays, even if some Youtube ads seem like a crapshoot, it's still much more focused than television.

This, its not that the new digital approaches are photos in absolute terms but compared to old media they are substantially better

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#567

Post by dang » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #547

dang wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 autho…

I never attacked them personally. I told my opinion about their work and writing.

For internet purposes, telling someone that they're "shitting on humanity" counts as a personal attack in my book. But if you don't perceive it that way, that's fine; it will suffice to avoid flamebait and name-calling in the future.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#568

Post by cycomanic » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

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?

Cambridge analytica, brexit (economically) hurt a lot of people. Similarly the regime changes in 3rd world countries that these guys engaged in probably physically hurt quite a few people.

I mean there are so many examples it's difficult to believe this is a genuine question. It sort of like asking in 1984 did anyone really get hurt by big brother watching?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#569

Post by beervirus » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #558

beervirus wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it. It’s great that he’s working on something that is alleged to be a little less horrible. Doesn’t make it good, or even acceptable.

Well until you have a better alternative...

Ad blockers and legislation.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#570

Post by andrepd » Thu, May 06, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

DogOnTheWeb wrote: post #519

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.

> Do you have a position on a better alternative business model

Sure! Thanks for asking. One idea I like is this: you pay a small, fixed subscription on top of your internet bill. This amount is then given proportionally to the services you visit.

This is nice for several reasons: even a small amount (~3-5$) gives a similar or higher revenue for content creators than ads do (a very rough back-of-the-envelope estimate based on youtube CPM). Plus, there's no problem with the friction of paying for things: you pay the same, regardless of watching 1 or 1000 videos (the netflix model, the cable tv model, heck any subscription model). Plus of course: no ads :)