Live data from Hacker News

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

751–760 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#751
post #44

Just wanted to mention I appreciate seeing a different perspective here. I know there's a lot of negative reaction to it, and I can empathize with that because there's a long history of negative behavior by the advertising industry. But there's no doubt that there are benefits too, and seeing some nuance on HN is always a win.

I see advertising as intrinsically immoral. So it's not only the privacy abuses (which are the most serious part) but advertising in general.

Just as an analogy, one could imagine similar comments:

* I see contraception as intrinsically immoral...

* I see gun ownership as intrinsically immoral...

* I see capitalism as intrinsically immoral...

Which are all sort of arguments by normative value and probably not very convincing to those who don't share the same values.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#752
post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Getting the right message in front of the right user at the right time is a lot harder than people think it is. Guess that's why we need those brightest minds of our generation on the problem, as the saying goes, right? That sentence gives me extreme Matthew McConaughey-in- Wolf of Wall Street vibes. After seeing you wrote that, I immediately assumed you very likely work in advertising. Sure enough... I have no clue…

If the greatest minds of society are going for the easiest payday perhaps they are not really our greatest minds. Perhaps they are the smart ones by cashing in but the great minds with the great ideas they are not.

Ad-tech involves big data, lots of volume, and tons of innovation and interesting challenges. There's usually a good paycheck too, because there are lots of companies that need smart people to work on the above.

Greatest minds? Maybe there are some, you'll find them everywhere. But I'd worry that the greatest minds are toiling away in academia chasing grants or working on things that they don't want to work on.

In the paraphrased words of Don Draper (Mad Men character), nobody grows up wanting to be in advertising. It just kind of happens.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

products subject to direct market forces are incentivized by this as well. you don't pay for crack with popups.

At least you're getting something out of it when it isn't ads, though. If it's a game (like Candy Crush, mentioned in another comment), at least you're getting some tiny dopamine hit, no matter how repetitive and empty. For social media, at least you're getting that slight bit of humor or outrage bait. I don't like these things at all, but they're something . With an ad, you're solely siphoning off a portion of my in…

I despise ads, but I think paying for a stimulating, informative article (for example) with an ad view is inherently less destructive than paying for a meaningless, empty dopamine hit, or manufactured outrage.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#754
post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The collection is per se harmful as long as warrants exist. Beyond that, it's an open secret (as in: it's been mentioned several times in available documents, but never deliberately disclosed or extensively discussed publicly, so far as I know) that since at least the mid or late 00s the US government has had contracts with multiple major tech companies that have a high level of access to citizen Internet traffic to…

The government doesn't go to fb when it wants someone's website history. It goes right to the ISPs.

What about your chat history then? Social graph? Statistical model of your behavior?

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the interesting things about advertising is that nobody really knows if it works, and there's a growing body of evidence that it largely doesn't work. We are sold on the idea that they work, because someone clicks this ad, we track them, they buy the product, and we attribute the sale to that ad. But we don't know whether the customer would have bought anyway. And some research suggests that, for the most part…

Digital marketing performance is increasingly measurable and there's more data than ever proving that it can be extremely effective. You can certainly waste a lot of money doing it too. Getting the right message in front of the right user at the right time is a lot harder than people think it is. The above is where there's a lot of smoke and mirrors in ad tech. But for advertising as a whole, it's not a massive indus…

> there's more data than ever proving that it can be extremely effective

Can you provide some pointers to that data (as the parent did for the contrary position)? Forgive me, but it seems you work in advertising, so I'm not sure if you're the most unbiased person to assert something like this without evidence.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#756
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone ignores the elephant in the room. Just let the users set their own advertising profiles! Always relevant ads, no tracking needed.

But you don't need to run a giant spying system to make that happen, so the companies whose moat is their giant spying system don't want to even try that. They also happen to have all the users/eyeballs (they need them for their spying system, in addition to serving ads to them). So it's hard for anyone else to try it to see how well it works.

I was going to delicately skip that point but what the hell, what's a few rungs up the watchlist these days anyway.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#757
Its hard to see the problem when your livelihood depends on ignoring it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that serving ads for consumer products and services is evil. Definitely annoying, but not morally wrong.

However that is not what is happening. Some of the largest companies in the history of the world are actively building and profiting from platforms that allow political parties and governments to distribute targeted propaganda and digest huge amounts of personal information collected under intentionally obfuscated terms of service.

If you are working at google / facebook / twitter you are just as responsible as the scientists and engineers who worked on the Manhattan project. You are the destroyer of worlds.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#758

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.

Just my anecdote, but when I used Instagram (stopped probably 2 years ago), the ad targeting was pretty terrible for me. Occasionally they would get something completely on the nose (to the point that it was a little creepy), but most of the time (>90% probably), the ads were completely irrelevant to me, either for things I already have and have no need to replace, or for things I don't think I'd ever conceivably buy.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#759
This guy works in ad tech and this is the extent of their moral reasoning on the issue? This is about one argument and 90% history. Better to say you don't want to think about how the sausage is made.

Many have commented on the inherently harmful nature of advertisement, so I would like to address the one argument I see in there, it goes something like must "ads must exist or else we would have to pay for content". But even this seems to me largely unfounded. By excluding "donations and hobbies", what the author is really saying is "ads must exist or else the content we get would be different (read: worse)".

I see no reason to believe this. The sources of information I find reliable are ones based on consensus, eg Wikipedia. If anything, I find getting information from traditional media less reliable than getting it directly from random people, as the latter don't have a financial interest to present only certain types of information or present the information in certain biased ways. The bigger a news corporation is, the more interest it has in 1) relying on fearmongering and 2) conforming to a "current government" bias (as we have seen to horrible effect when Trump was president). As for entertainment, it is doubtful that anyone could become a millionaire with daily vlogs or let's plays as they can today, but I personally know of many that would be glad to just make a living. It's also improbable that a single big website such as YouTube would totally dominate the video sharing landscape, as they wouldn't be able to rely on ads to do so. Incidentally, getting rid of ads would solve the "advertiser friendly" problem that plagues mass media, small content creators and consumers alike.

In short, saying "ads are the only way" seems to me the same as saying "the web is have is the best version of the web" or even "it's the only web we can have". I disagree on both counts, and I for one can't wait until the house of cards crumbles.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Getting the right message in front of the right user at the right time is a lot harder than people think it is. Guess that's why we need those brightest minds of our generation on the problem, as the saying goes, right? That sentence gives me extreme Matthew McConaughey-in- Wolf of Wall Street vibes. After seeing you wrote that, I immediately assumed you very likely work in advertising. Sure enough... I have no clue…

There are hucksters in every industry, and if you ask me, crypto has some next-level hucksterism. The core of advertising is just getting some message about your product or service to a relevant audience. A lot of companies offer that service, some more effective than others. But yes, I started an ad-tech company that supports indie news publishers. Before that, I was offered a great gig at Yahoo (when it was still k…

>There are hucksters in every industry, and if you ask me, crypto has some next-level hucksterism.

It's certainly hard to compare entire industries apples-to-apples. The worst parts of the cryptocurrency industry are definitely worse than the worst parts of the advertising industry. However, I personally feel like in an "average", "net", or "expected value" sense, advertising may be worse. But maybe it isn't; either way, all I was trying to say is I really just don't like advertising or ad tech, and I wanted to use a rather extreme comparison to viscerally convey that. (Perhaps a little like a kind of "bullshit-industry" analogue of Godwin's law - my comparison was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and bad faith, basically, but also kind of not, because I do like some aspects of cryptocurrencies while I like zero aspects of advertising.)

>that supports indie news publishers

Sure, and maybe someone else could've started one that supports starving children. (The originally posted article similarly mentions that one of their reasons for working on ads is "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".)

These all feel like cop-outs to me. I could significantly support independent creators or starving children by running a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, but it still doesn't make it positive on net. The difference is that you and the article author simultaneously say that you feel like the work is inherently positive, too, which in my book just makes it delusional rather than dissonant or contradictory.

So I absolutely don't think you're at all behaving knowingly unethically; just unknowingly. I think part of the issue here is that it's generally only a tiny bit unethical, so it takes a lot for it to add up to being a-lot-unethical, and humans (including myself) usually aren't so good at perceiving these potential cumulative effects when they're upstream of it all.

>The core of advertising is just getting some message about your product or service to a relevant audience.

At the same time, I can't not acknowledge this. How can I fault a small business owner for wanting people to know they exist? There's some cognitive dissonance of my own, here. And at the moment I'm resolving the dissonance by disliking the advertising and ad tech industries rather than disliking businesses who place ads. (As long as the ads they place aren't annoying, deceptive, or malicious in any way.)

Maybe my opinion on all this will eventually shift a bit, though, because a lot of it's certainly more emotional than logical. At a very deep, subjective level, I just strongly dislike advertising and everything about it. It gives me nothing but negative feelings. Most of the cryptocurrency industry gives me negative feelings, too - but the industry as a whole doesn't give me nothing but negative feelings. Some part of it gives me neutral or positive feelings.

Post reply on HN