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

441–450 of 632 posts

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

#441

Post by thrwaeasddsaf »

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

Fantasy world. These products do not exist, as far as I'm aware. The reality is trash products. I couldn't care less if all that trash just vanishes from the internet.

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

#442

Post by cactus2093 »

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…

I wonder this too, and don't forget this is only half the equation. The free platforms need ads to support them, but a lot of the businesses buying the ads might not be able to exist without the direct ad targeting that has been possible the past 5 to 10 years. I'm a big fan of direct to consumer brands, yes some of them turn out to be completely ridiculous (like the infamous Juicero a few years ago), but it's amazing that a small team can dream up a new product or better design and start selling it quickly with minimal risk. The loss of ad targeting definitely benefits big existing retail players and makes things more difficult and costly for consumer product startups.

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

#443

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#444

Post by jimkleiber »

distances wrote: post #437
joreilly wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bef…

I agree totally. There's not that much physical world advertising in my part of Europe (e.g. almost no road side banners at all), but I still despise how we've sold bus stops and metro walls to the highest bidder. Public space should be advertisement-free as you can't opt out of it. Private spaces like inside shopping malls is fine for me.

I like that distinction between public and private spaces. And I think those rules exist in many places (at least in the US) but maybe not as strict as you may be desiring. I'm pretty sure my town has restrictions on how tall/big billboards can be, and I know they used to have restrictions about how tall the McDonald's or other restaurant signs could be.

I like the idea that inside a private building is opt-in/consent, whereas outside of it is not.

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

#445

Post by ako »

danbruc wrote: post #287
intev wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such convoluted reasoning and you keep mentioning it. For example I could say: "I don't want to pay the road toll, I pay for it with the gas tax I pay" or "I don't want to pay for Disneyland, I pay for it with all the things I buy inside". Technically Disney could make entrance free and charge ridiculous rates for everything inside but I'm certain that makes theme parks significantly less viable as a business…

What is convoluted about that? I buy a product, some fraction of the profit goes into the marketing budget, some fraction of the marketing budget goes to Facebook. How am I not paying for using Facebook? Where does their revenue come from if not from me?

Isn't that up to facebook to determine how they want you to pay for their services? Just like it's up to disney, apple, microsoft, tesla to determine what their pricing model is. And it's up to you if you can live with this pricing model, and if you don't, don't use the product or service.

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

#447

Post by drstewart »

downrightmike wrote: post #240
notwhereyouare wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally wish the wording was slightly different. Something like Deny Tracking Allow Tracking instead of the "Ask app not to track" I have to read the prompt a few times to make sure i pick the right one

Dark pattern on purpose

Please explain the purpose of this dark pattern? Keep in mind that my follow up question to you will be: "why even show the popup at all then?"

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

#449

Post by bronzeage »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #373
jensensbutton wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lot of people who were hoping for Facebook's demise are going to be sorely disappointed this year.

They aren't going anywhere. They are, along with Google, scared of the current head of the FTC. They claim she is biased. "scared" is the wrong word for these powerful companies. She is probally the last thing Mark is worried about. Does he even have worries at this point?

If you expect any kind of pressure from Biden administration against the companies which nearly bought his presidency, you're naive.

Facebook literally bought the Wisconsin elections, including the whole infrastructure. You think Biden do anything at all against Facebook when he owes his power to them more than the people?

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

#450

Post by kitsunesoba »

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…

I think it’s worth pointing out that ad blockers only became popular because ads came to be so badly behaved.

The earliest iterations of banner ads weren’t that bad. They were basically print ads with some low-key animations added at worst, and many weren’t even graphical.

But then arose an arms race to create the most attention-grabbing, obnoxious ads possible, and ad supported pages quickly became neon disco raves that sucked up CPU cycles and sometimes even hijacked users’ browsers. This was the first tipping point.

And then ads became ever more invasive, fingerprinting users in any way possible. This was the second tipping point.

Had web ads stayed lightly-enhanced, unscripted print ads, I doubt anybody would care to install an ad blocker, but here we are today where doing so is practically essential not just from a privacy standpoint, but also from a security standpoint (since ads can exploit 0days).

So the industry largely brought this upon itself, at least in my eyes.

Post reply on HN