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

401–410 of 632 posts

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

#401

Post by BeetleB »

afavour wrote: post #381
continuational wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd simply prefer if all services became paid.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

> You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like.

Curious example, since this was the case for most of the history of journalism.

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

#402

Post by afavour »

BeetleB wrote: post #401
afavour wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

> You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. Curious example, since this was the case for most of the history of journalism.

Not entirely, historically newspapers had both ads and a sale price. That price was subsidised by ads.

But you’re right that it’s not so clear. Maybe a more straightforward example is broadcast TV: ABC, NBC and the like. Free at delivery, paid for by ads.

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

#403

Post by kwanbix »

jimkleiber wrote: post #385
air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

Your post inspires me to look at it from a real-world analogy. If I imagine that online ads are the same as offline ads, I start to think about what offline ad tracking would look like. I imagine cameras being on the streets to watch me walk down the street, following me to different stores to see what I buy, with whom I meet, and other activities to inform which billboards/street advertisements should exist. I think…

As far as I see it, tracking is there to make sure you get relevant adds.

I remember the internet in the HoTMaiL era, all of the adds where mainly about casinos, porn and such, and very rarely interested to me.

I personally think that if tracking is done with good intentions, it shouldn't be an issue. At least from my point of view.

I rather see totally relevant ads than have again "casino/poker/porn" ads.

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

#404

Post by tempestn »

barnabee wrote: post #194
Workaccount2 wrote: post #156

Alright HN, so what is the end game here? I'm sure some of you have some experience working in the "ad supported" space, and obviously most of the internet and many of its services run on the ad model. So where are we going to end up if there is a full on public distrust of the current ad model?

Hopefully purely ad supported services cease to exist. I never understood why these companies don't offer paid options with no ads or tracking, at least in adddition to the ad supported "free" version.

Short answer is that so few people are willing to pay for that, it's generally not worth the time. (Unless there are other premium features you can add as well, without completely hamstringing your free version.)

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

#405

Post by [deleted] »

afavour wrote: post #381
continuational wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd simply prefer if all services became paid.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

[deleted]

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

#406

Post by joreilly »

jimkleiber wrote: post #385
air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

Your post inspires me to look at it from a real-world analogy. If I imagine that online ads are the same as offline ads, I start to think about what offline ad tracking would look like. I imagine cameras being on the streets to watch me walk down the street, following me to different stores to see what I buy, with whom I meet, and other activities to inform which billboards/street advertisements should exist. I think…

Performing the same though-exercise, I find myself with a different conclusion; I despise physical advertising. I hate driving down the high-way and seeing a massive billboard for who-even-cares interrupting the fields and forests. I don't want to have products pushed at me while walking around downtown. São Paulo removed all billboards/branding/advertising with their Clean City Law [0] in 2007 and the difference before and after is massive. It immediately looked so much more clean and beautiful (at least for the parts of the city they photographed, probably some selection bias here). Assuming that billboards and advertising are somehow putting money into the government's pockets, I would gladly raise my taxes to eradicate public advertising permanently. Bringing the analogy back to digital advertising, I'd be happy to pay some sort of monthly fee to "The Internet" to receive access to it and never see an ad or be tracked again, perhaps similar to what Coil [1] is attempting, but somehow at full-internet scale. Naturally, how this could be implemented is far beyond me, as are the economics behind advertising, so I suppose I'm doing little more than wistful thinking.

If I had to compromise, I would agree that more agency and less intrusive ads and tracking are a start.

[0]: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

[1]: https://coil.com/

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

#407

Post by SimeVidas »

air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

You’re confusing ads with tracking.

Do we have any proof that regular, old non-tracking ads could not sustain a top website? I’ve heard stories that websites can actually earn more by excluding all the ad tech middlemen from the equation.

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

#408

Post by dillondoyle »

jimkleiber wrote: post #385
air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

Your post inspires me to look at it from a real-world analogy. If I imagine that online ads are the same as offline ads, I start to think about what offline ad tracking would look like. I imagine cameras being on the streets to watch me walk down the street, following me to different stores to see what I buy, with whom I meet, and other activities to inform which billboards/street advertisements should exist. I think…

Some of that 'offline' pervasive tracking you describe does exist!

Not on the scale of the internet and you give some good examples that are egregious. a lot of it is just 'adtech' bs, but it's there.

and the traditional in-store transaction data marketplace is huge. Companies have been tracking you and your purchases around forever.

passive bluetooth IDs track you in store - though didn't iOS mitigate that by changing them frequently? idk maybe not.

There are some 'eye tracking' billboard tech but it's kind of dumb imho. The simpler is just trying to estimate impressions.

though maybe that's more digital ads than not. but collecting, selling, aggregating consumer data, combining it with purchase data, and using that for direct marketing ha been around for ages.

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

#409

Post by phkahler »

air7 wrote: post #366

I dislike being tracked as much as the next guy, but I often wonder what "our" ideal end-game goal is? By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this. If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectl…

>> If we want top-grade products to remain available without a direct monetary transaction (i.e "free"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectly somehow.

For the sake of argument, lets assume FaceBook is a top-grade product that people currently don't pay for with money. It exists because advertisers pay FB. The targeting of ads to individual users allegedly results in a high CTR or whatever. Without targeting, FaceBook can still sell ads but they will be less targeted, and presumably have a lower CTR. That means they will be less valuable than other forms of ads and the ad spend will be adjusted accordingly. That seems bad for our "free" service. OTOH if we stop targeting in all areas, there will be no medium that is "better" to put ads and so the spend will likely move in proportion to where peoples eyeballs and ears are, as things used to be. That might actually result in more ad spending in areas like radio, TV, and any other medium that never gained the ability to target specific people.

Maybe that's a good thing for us consumers.

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

#410

Post by jakubmazanec »

the-dude wrote: post #392
dharma1 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube Premium (paid) is well worth the price of admission, to not have to watch ads. Don't think I'd pay for Facebook

This can be had for free with uBlock Origin ( I never see an ad on YT ).

That works only on desktop.
Post reply on HN