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

Post by svachalek » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:38 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #375

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…

The other option of "what you can give" is "give up using the service". That is, if you don't want ads, if you don't want to be tracked, and you don't want to mine crypto, the remaining option is to not use the service. If you insist on none of the first three, the service providers will eventually force the fourth option on you. Or, as continuational said, you will have to pay for it.

Post by svachalek » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:42 PM UTC

sturza wrote: post #386

tobr wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 30-40 years old, male and live in a certain region. And that's information that would help advertisers Region, sure, that makes sense for a local business. But targeting gender or age is discrimination.

how would you sell bras for women over 50?

Post by nkingsy » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

thrtythreeforty wrote: post #370

nkingsy wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily think engagement is the wrong metric, and I don’t mind some personalized tracking of that engagement to increase ad revenue. The issue is allowing any old engagement. I’d like to see the hacker news system scaled. Some things that could make moderators actions go further to keep the cost down: - outrage detection: before you hit post, you’re warned that your possibly inflammatory post will be flag…

Why would I ever do anything but lurk in such a forum? The risk/reward ratio would be so out of whack that even if I wanted to learn something, I would rather not risk a drive-by ban if who I'm talking to turned out to make the moderator mad.

Post by probably_wrong » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

smachiz wrote: post #384

bquest2 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are still serving an ad in that spot, just one that costs the advertiser more as the now have to bid in a larger pool. FB actually ends up profiting pretty well from this change (at the cost of losing some of the small business advertising that was priced out)

No, this isn't right - because FB can no longer tell you as much information about the ad they're about to display, they're going to collect less money for it. They can't correlate that ad to an action, which means they can't make you a happy chart that says the ROI is there. So you're going to pay less for it. This isn't going to harm small businesses no matter what FB says.

Post by asdff » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #357

bquest2 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely, there are car enthusiasts who read about cars that would never read an article about California wine, but would benefit from knowing about it. In your world, that person misses out on the pleasures of california wine

This is an amusing example. I'd guess that car enthusiasts are aware of Sonoma for various reasons. I suspect they'd get some exposure to California wine inadvertently through that connection.