Live data from Hacker News

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

791–800 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#791

I’m against advertisement, in my opinion it’s the worst thing to happen to the internet. However, I have a problem with Google adverts specifically and that is that they’re absolute hot garbage. Google has advertised to me: outright scams, malware, gambling, mobile games with extremely exploitative monetisation. And they are working to take away any privacy I might have to keep showing me this shit. In my opinion, Go…

When I was a impoverished kid, how else was I supposed to get internet and email accept for with Juno, then NetZero or stealing internet? Yeah I used gophernet through a local library dialup and it was not the internet. I mean, my brother once bought a "personal fan" for $1 and that was the most coveted possession we had for about 6 months. As someone who grew up extremely poor and effectively dumpster dived for my f…

From my experience, every educational website I visit (encyclopedias, scholarly articles, college coursework/notes, personal how-to blogs, ebooks) is hosted for free without advertisements, bitcoin miners, or tolls whatsoever.

But perhaps I have not noticed very much because I mostly use an ad-blocker. When I don't use an ad-blocker, I notice ads are mostly on crappy click-baity sources and social media (youtube, forums, etc.).

educational information is usually just text, so it's easy to host I suppose. wikipedia, for example is only a couple hundred gigabytes. But the stuff most people want to spend their time on is video and image forums, which are expensive to host.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#792
post #275
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO these are weak examples. - Are you suggesting that your friend got divorced so that she could sell her ring, because an ad told her she could sell her ring? I doubt that was the straw that broke the camels back. - The android phone has utility beyond it's addictiveness. Yes homeless people need a phone. - Re fusion centers: ads targeting data is a relatively shitty surveillance too, the three letter agencies have…

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 am pretty sure I have some screenshots of google ads for alcohol when scrolling through my google news feed - I have not seen many - but it struck a nerve a time or two I am pretty sure - and I think I screenshotted them. I will check on this. I would love it if they would ban such - I am not a prohibitionist, but also think people should be able to request a "non-alchohol ads on the table section", much like people once chose to sit in smoking / non-smoking..

when trying to cater to folks who struggled with such, indeed the options were limited for dining out.. IHop and waffle bouse two of the options I recall.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a impoverished kid, how else was I supposed to get internet and email accept for with Juno, then NetZero or stealing internet? Yeah I used gophernet through a local library dialup and it was not the internet. I mean, my brother once bought a "personal fan" for $1 and that was the most coveted possession we had for about 6 months. As someone who grew up extremely poor and effectively dumpster dived for my f…

From my experience, every educational website I visit (encyclopedias, scholarly articles, college coursework/notes, personal how-to blogs, ebooks) is hosted for free without advertisements, bitcoin miners, or tolls whatsoever. But perhaps I have not noticed very much because I mostly use an ad-blocker. When I don't use an ad-blocker, I notice ads are mostly on crappy click-baity sources and social media (youtube, for…

There are definitely good free resources once you get on the internet, stack overflow (vc funded & only recently profitable?), github, wikipedia, early on.. ruby on rails (and it's comparatively very friendly and prolific teaching community), etc... these are wonderful examples of accessing high quality data for free.

Scholarly articles and research have been behind paywalls (jstore, etc.) if you don't have access through a university (which I never have.)

Alternatively, everything is free if you pirate the content, I just don't think the numbers add up to having that be a lasting funding model.

The most helpful "free" content for doing home electrical work, car repair, etc. which make a big difference for people on near $0 budgets is media on youtube.

I think the argument could be made for publicly subsidized video, media hosting and other "utility" style services, but the mass adoption and accessibility of the internet for the poor wasn't built on that (as far as memory serves from my experience of being on BBSs and then online in the 90s.) and I think killing ads without an alternative feels like a regressive cart before horse approach.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#794
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMO these are weak examples. - Are you suggesting that your friend got divorced so that she could sell her ring, because an ad told her she could sell her ring? I doubt that was the straw that broke the camels back. - The android phone has utility beyond it's addictiveness. Yes homeless people need a phone. - Re fusion centers: ads targeting data is a relatively shitty surveillance too, the three letter agencies have…

I appreciate that these are weak examples, just trying to point out a couple off the top of my head - surely there are many more.

The ring thing - I think it was the straw that broke the camels back honestly.. and hey that might have been a good thing - it certainly wasn't the two-ton elephant on top - but I do think it was the thing that made an easy / quick escape possible - maybe that's a good thing - some religious folks may feel otherwise - I'm on the fence about it - but it does point to a weird thing that probably should not be happening with social network data imho.

the fusion centers / requests for locations / emails / search history - all other data.. I agree ads are shitty surveillance generally - however the mass amounts of data being collected to make the ads more valuable - the location data, the emails, the search history - all of that has been quite valuable in many cases from what I have seen on the news..

when it's a murderous ex lover people may cheer - but how much reporting is done on the requests for data that just pry into people's lives and cause them to lose time and money and threats of being shot - that don't go to trials / convictions / wrong person...

so this is more of a reply to the parent comment to consider about harm from mass surveillance they could not think of any.. well there are some - and really many.. certainly many more than my weak top of the head considerations. Not just specifically ads themselves.

I think there are some places where alcohol ads on billboards are banned - and part of me thinks that's a good thing, the free speech absolutist in me says it's not.. but if we ban nudes or gore or whatever on billboards cuz public safety - well sadly alcohol and tobacco probably should also be included there - and gambling.. and addictive technology.. I mean maybe not in Vegas.. I dunno. I hate the alcohol ads on the tables at restaurants and the immediate upsell by waiters/resses with great drink specials.. they should ask if you want a "dry" experience at the table imho.

I agree targeted ads are very good in many ways - I just think people should get more control to 'stop showing X ad cuz Y (already bought it / decided I hate it / have an addiction / whatever) - turn off all targeted cuz it's a shared device and fam is seeing presents.. whatever..

I must disagree about the data being collected though - sure a third party advertiser on yahoo may not be collecting a ton of info about someone - but google does collect a ton of personally identifiable info including emails, gps / locations traveled, search history and much more I am sure.

That data can be used to harm people, by the state, by divorce attorneys.. one could say the hernandez location data led to him being jailed and suicided - I think most would argue that catching him with tech was a good thing - but the demanding of data from big G is not always used for such things, and it can be abused or just used to fish expedition into lives.

There are many ways to harm using the data collected.. oh yeah - the insurance fraud people in new york demanding all stored info about people while they fished for people pretending to be disabled.. I mean, doing good was thier goal - but some people's privacy was slayed that were not doing fraud - is that harm? People seem to lean towards certain other pics of people being shared re-harms victims - so I dunno.

It's not just the ads - it's the other data collected to enable highly targeted ads that can and is used to harm.

How many arrests have been made using google data? How many investigations to peer into lives that did not lead to an arrest? How many give us all cell phones near location X during Y-Z time so we can look into them.. How many times has google taken info and sent it voluntarily to agencies with guns? I'd love to see that in a transparency report.

I know both F and G occasionally push back in requests from doj - but in the end - they give up data on a regular basis even if they ask to limit scope sometimes - and certainly there are times when harm comes to a target at least once I would guess.

Not trying to make a strong case for digital ad companies evil - just trying to point to parent commenter that there are examples in the news of harm done using the data - and suggesting many more examples exist - we just don't hear about them all. Admittedly - percentage wise - it's probably .0000002 percent or something, unless we get into addictions and shopping addictions - then higher - but it's not like the intent by the companies is to do evil always - it's just that the tools do enable it imho.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#795
post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite their whining, most people want free stuff, and ads are almost free (a small attention cost). > Most consumers cannot afford to pay for software or news subscriptions. > Don’t work for adtech, block all your ads, pay for everything. All this is false. Growth hacking has created products that are addictive and which people don't really need. These are then justified by saying that consumers can't afford to p…

"In my ultimate wisdom, I know what people need better than they do. Products I don't like shouldn't be allowed to exist"

"All possible services are good for society and the only valid criteria use as to whether they are offered is whether they make someone (probably Facebook or Google) money"

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "The alternative of paying $9.99/year for Youtube" was really an option - I would buy it for at least 4 kids I know, and two adults that need it, to remove the horrible ads, especially on mobile. Get me started on the ads that come with play store apps and "free games". however at $12/month that would be $864 per year to help them. I would jump at $60 / year for 6 people.. heck that would save me on comcast overag…

My family pays for youtube premium ( https://www.youtube.com/premium/family ), it's $18/month for 5 people. They also get access to "youtube music premium", which is basically a spotify clone (so unlimited music with no ads). It's quite a good deal imo

thanks for this info - I was not aware - it does not work for my six - as two are here and two west of town and two south of town.. some fosters.. so not same household.. but glad this is a thing.

The other day to prevent a young one from replaying the same soundtrack over and over via youtube - (bandwidth repeatedly counting against and lots of ads for the same repeated songs oh my) - I just popped over to amazon and bought the album and popped it onto a usb stick for them.

I picked up a couple of gift cards for their bday this week - one of them was a google play card - then I remembered G killed the music section of the play store, so I put it back and got an amazon card instead.

that premium would be a great deal if we had one more in the household here. we've got three chromecasts - two with the google tv - but not the gtv plan - sheesh the ads via youtube with that are a drain, and I wonder about the compression for music - but they still use them for convenience and the other things like discovery+ which is affordable.

Oh if only they would plex-like into a win7 box on the network and pull my collection of mp3s.

Maybe all this is going in a good direction. Fingers crossed.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#797

The author writes that you can either pay with money or you can “pay with your attention”. What’s left unsaid is the cost of that attention. I believe that cost is very high and it isn’t just ads, it’s the design of countless products including social media sites, games and even the site you’re reading this on right now. It’s all designed to extract as much attention as possible, and the cost is people’s ability to c…

The thing is, Google's customers generally do not simply want attention, they want people to pay them for something. Thus, there is a monetary cost if the advertiser succeeds. Google is just a middleman, taking a cut of those prospective sales. The sad part of online ads is that the internet allows an advertiser, with Google's help, to potentially annoy hundreds of millions of people in order to make some small numbe…

> The sad part of online ads is that the internet allows an advertiser, with Google's help, to potentially annoy hundreds of millions of people in order to make some small number of sales.

This sentence suddenly made me see all online ads as essentially modern, “intelligent” robocalls at scale.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make similar arguments for almost all jobs. You make cars? You focus on good things like driving to a vacation, but what about all the cars used in drive by shootings? You sell cloud services? You talk about the great websites, but what about all the people who host scam sites on the cloud? You write monitoring software? What about all the people who monitor ad services?

I believe that the key of the message was that the advertisement companies gather a plenty of personal data and vulnerable groups are very easy to find and target. The same private data is also useful for "all the people who host scam sites on the cloud".

This. The more ad platform becomes accurate, the more ads will exploit vulnerabilities in human mind. Some might believe they don't have such vulnerabilities, but there can be some in subconscious level. Ad tech is basically PSYOP and people really should be on guard.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the companies winning bidds on your 'views' are targeting you because of your apparent persona, i.e middle aged man/woman in tech -aka middle class ++ with disposable income, rather than what you are interested in. On top of that, plenty of marketers are absolutely clueless about how to go about their strategy, mostly because unlike previous generations (in online ads), they don't grok the underlying t…

They might was well simply tie it to the program content then. For instance, if I watch a Scott Kilmer video, it'll typically have an Autozone ad. If that's all there is to it, I expect there's a lot of needless work being done under the covers.

No, actually you can do both (and more).

Advertising is throwing darts at the board with your eyes closed, whenever it lands somewhere on the board and nets you point is good enough for most.

Typical conversion rates are under the 1% threshold so you accept that a lot of your spend is not efficient but when it is, you make your money back and some, if you are any good at it.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#800
post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still ultimately true with things you subscribe to though. Netflix vies for your attention even though you pay directly with $$, because if another streaming service takes more of your attention, you'll pay for it (potentially instead).

With Netflix they have to strike a balance, though. Someone who watches Netflix 8 hours a day is going to cost them more in royalties than someone who watches 8 hours a week. The sweet spot is likely a little different for everyone, and is whatever amount of attention keeps them subscribed, but no more. Additionally, I have a customer-vendor relationship with Netflix. With a random ad-supported website or something l…

That's not how Netflix thinks about it internally. The north star metric for Netflix is how many people choose to renew every month and the biggest correlation to this is number of minutes watched per month.

All else being equal, given a choice between a change that makes people watch more minutes per month or less, Netflix will always choose more.

Post reply on HN