Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 632 posts

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#211

Post by threatofrain »

janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

I'm curious how much manipulation people think is involved in terms of buying things you didn't want. Enough to absolve someone of their financial responsibility for buying?

Why or why not?

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#212

Post by sp332 »

uvesten wrote: post #74
gerikson wrote: post #64

Facebook: “We believe that personalized ads and user privacy can coexist.” No-one else does.

How would this even be theoretically possible? I mean, if you know someone’s personal details, they per definition has lost that privacy towards you.

Well, you don't need to know a person's name and home address to advertise. A profile could include a list of interests. The trouble is that identifying the user across different websites to build the profile requires, you know, an identifier.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#213

Post by ocdtrekkie »

artursapek wrote: post #148
mariusor wrote: post #73

For the past year I've had this ritual of clicking on every advertising tile as soon as it appears and mark it as irrelevant and that I don't want to see any more from that company. Currently this happens for a couple of days at the start of some months. So far I feel like this strategy has worked fine, 90% of the time I don't get served any unwanted content and I can view a decent timeline.

On Twitter, I've been blocking every account that pushes ads. Slowly I think I've gotten most of them lol. I don't see as many now.

Anecdotally, this strategy does not work on Reddit: I've blocked u/madebygoogle and still get shown ads by that user account all the time.

Gonna try it on Twitter though since you say it works...

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#214

Post by pier25 »

mehlmao wrote: post #80
pier25 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This all makes me start feeling like I might finally want an iPhone... Or maybe don't use Facebook on Android?

Facebook is tracking users of other, non-Facebook apps. Apple's new feature allows users to deny Facebook that ability.

> Facebook is tracking users of other, non-Facebook apps.

For example?

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#215

Post by worker767424 »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #12

Even with all the tracking, the generated ads still suck, showing things already purchased. This reminds me of the overhyped lead generation tools out there, they do not work as expected. Someone's financial interest is the root cause here, someone is making good money with ads. The ones who sell ads? For sure. The ones who buy adds? Not many success stories out there.

This is called retargeting. Aside from possible repeat purchases, my guess is that enough people browse a site or never complete their checkout that advertisers are happy to take the chance that 50% of people who see the ad might no longer be interested because that's still higher interest than you can get from almost any other channel.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#216

Post by masswerk »

aerosmile wrote: post #205
masswerk wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about tracking back to content related advertising rather than tracking based advertising? All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway. And, as these metrics (and ethics) suggest, it has been an illegitimate invasion, right from the beginning. The fancy "conversion rate" dashboards are just not worth it. Bonus: Maybe this will be an opportunity for content providers to reset the decline o…

> All related studies are showing that the latter isn't working anyway. This is very common on HN these days - stating something with a lot of confidence that turns out to be some self-constructed mental model that has nothing to do with reality. Then, add the obligatory "all related studies are showing it" and you have met the publishing standards. Legally or illegally, morally or immorally, for better or worse, Fac…

Disclaimer: I studied media theory and publishing, but well before the Web became the all-decisive factor. Meaning, I have some idea about those things and have still an interest in them. (Also, I actually programmed ad embedding mechanisms for ad networks, but quit this field, when things became too invasive and ads too aggressive and I couldn't justify this any longer. – At this time, tracking was commonly done for multistage campaigns only.)

That said, I've never come upon a study that showed significant gains due to targeting, rather to the contrary. – So, after a decade, I'm still waiting for any proof in favor of targeting. (The suspicion must be still that targeting is rather a lazy alternative to media analysis and its perceived advantage is rather rooted in minimising efforts than in effectiveness.)

Regarding "Facebook has created the most sophisticated ad targeting engine", this is a rather biased proposition. It has enforced Facebook as a broker, made advertising cheap, while less effective, and has driven ad revenues for content providers downhill. (Google is to blame, as well.)

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#217

Post by city41 »

hansvm wrote: post #101
zarkov99 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you actually use PiHole to serve DNS for your Android? I was able to direct my Linux systems to my PiHole but my Android phone seemed to not care a wit about my internal DNS.

Yes, absolutely. A few apps (notably chrome) use secure dns by default, and given the state of that ecosystem they default to their own provider. You'll need to set up secure dns on your pihole and tell chrome to use that provider (or disable it in chrome).

I have secure dns on my pi hole, but on my Android phone I did nothing at all. Just use it as-is, and when I'm on my home wifi all ads get blocked.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#218

Post by pier25 »

sarsway wrote: post #110
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe don't use Facebook at all? And block any and all Facebook DNS queries with a PiHole.

Yep go delete your WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram accounts now. Takes 10 minutes. No one truly needs them. Don't make excuses why you need them. In fact these apps only hurt you. So don't hesitate, just do it. It can feel uneasy, but in only a week or so you'll be happy you pulled through.

Whatsapp is the main form of communication in many countries.

Not only to communicate with friends and family, but also services like takeout, the plumber, etc.

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#219

Post by aerosmile »

masswerk wrote: post #201
PaulHoule wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tracking is necessary for the advertising economy to control bad behavior on the part of publishers and advertisers, not just to serve targeted ads. No matter what there would be discrepancies in the numbers (publisher says it sent 75 clicks, advertiser says it got 70) and that breeds mistrust. Participants have a reason to lie. Having multiple third party watch the whole thing helps them trust each other.

This has been possible before. Google was built around content based advertising. Also, maybe click-through rates are not that important? Maybe exposure is a more decisive metric? As a side-effect, we may reduce social bubble effects and maybe even return to a shared reality? (Many of the unwanted effects of the Web are really due to targeted advertising and its consequences.)

You're clearly under the impression that all that Facebook does is get you good click-through rates and low conversion rates. Similarly, you're under the impression that Google's conversion rates are through the roof. Did you ever stop to ask yourself if your world view might be limited to a small sample size (eg: your own experiences)? I know plenty of businesses where the conversion rates are exactly the opposite of what you described. It turns out, the right marketing platform is related to the product you're selling. For example, if you want to buy a vacuum, Google will do a great job in connecting you with the right advertiser. But what if you just started a new hobby and don't yet know what it is that you need in that hobby? Eg, you started racing, but have no idea that upgrading your suspension will get you more performance than upgrading your exhaust? The advertiser selling suspension components will use Facebook to share this information with you (and Facebook will do a much better job than Google of identifying the person who needs that component but doesn't know it yet), and they will also advertise on Google as well, but Google will only be relevant once the buyer starts researching suspension solutions. Kind of nice to be the first one to pitch a suspension solution to a willing buyer, don't you think?

Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking

#220

Post by handrous »

_zzaw wrote: post #186
cm2012 wrote: post #116

I own an advertising agency. I've tracked ios impressions % over time on all of our remarketing campaigns (as a proxy), its down about 30% from peak and stabilized. Not a huge deal. LOL at this below: "Seufert estimated that in the first full quarter users see the prompt, the iOS changes could cut Facebook’s revenue by 7% if roughly 20% of users agree to be tracked. If just 10% of users grant Facebook tracking permis…

I think it's a bit early to be claiming that iOS impression loss has "stabilized". I'm the first one most of my friends come to for tech questions, and I make a point of explaining privacy issues to them and helping them counter creepy behavior in apps/websites. When my parents buy iPhones, the first thing I'll be telling them is which button to push when apps want to stalk them. By myself, I'm an irrelevantly small…

> When my parents buy iPhones, the first thing I'll be telling them is which button to push when apps want to stalk them.

There's a "always, silently, deny" option in settings for this. It's labeled something like "allow apps to request tracking" and if you turn it off, they can't and just get a "no". No more asking per app, which is fine because it's not like anyone would ever want to allow it. It's not as if it's the kind of prompt where someone might actually want to say yes, sometimes. The screen is easy to find by searching "track" in iOS settings.

I know because this headline prompted me to double check that I had it set correctly.

Post reply on HN