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

451–460 of 632 posts

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

#451

Post by jrm4 »

villasv wrote: post #265
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 prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads I froze up the first time someone said this to me. Of course I prefer random ads, cause this way they're less likely to push the right buttons on my vulnerable monkey-ass brain. Do people think tailored ads are good for them instead of consumerism triggers? Messed up worldview.

Right -- but the solution here is simple, it just destroys much of the business model for the advertisers themselves:

The answer is, "advertisers, open up to all of us exactly how it all works. Tell me honestly and truthfully what it is you would like to track and what you would like to know about me, and how you intend to use it and from that I will decide what to tell you."

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

#452

Post by dfrankow »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #450
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…

This is prisonner's dilemma / tragedy of the commons. The best-performing ads made more money, anyone who didn't grab attention enough would be strongly pushed towards grabbing more attention by industry norms. It was rational for every individual to grab more attention, but it was bad for the group.

Prisoner's dilemma problems are hard to solve.

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

#453

Post by neolog »

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…

Browsers can support microtransactions for pageviews. That would avoid many of the problems, but not all.

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

#454

Post by SergeAx »

phkahler wrote: post #409
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…

Without targeting we will just see mediocre, if not shitty, all-terrain ads, like those on TV. Men will see ads of women products and vice versa.

Internet advertising will become the home ground of big companies, which don't mind spending tons of cash for widest possible audience reach. Small business will be effectively cut out of online ads, except search engines with their keywords targeting.

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

#455

Post by lowbloodsugar »

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

Don't want.

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

#456

Post by r00fus »

dfrankow wrote: post #452
kitsunesoba wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is prisonner's dilemma / tragedy of the commons. The best-performing ads made more money, anyone who didn't grab attention enough would be strongly pushed towards grabbing more attention by industry norms. It was rational for every individual to grab more attention, but it was bad for the group. Prisoner's dilemma problems are hard to solve.

It's solved by banning that group/activity. When the value proposition is net-negative, there should be curbs on such activity.

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

#458

Post by aerosmile »

renewiltord wrote: post #358
aerosmile wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative conclusion: as with all things in a capitalist society, there is a small minority of people that is killing it, and they are not making it easy for everyone else to discover their playbooks.

That doesn’t work because we’re assuming that most marketers are making easy mistakes. The playbook is so simple that people on HN could write it, supposedly.

> That doesn’t work because we’re assuming that most marketers are making easy mistakes. The playbook is so simple that people on HN could write it, supposedly.

Those are someone else's words, not mine. I never argued that winning on Facebook is "easy" (and for the record, neither is it on Google). It's not easy, it's just doable. And for those who have the skills and resources to do it, it's massively profitable. I would even argue that if you're letting an agency run your Google or Facebook account, you're lacking the resources to do it right. What you need is top-level talent competing against your nearest competitors, and winning battles inch by inch. An agency will never give you the talent you need to go up against a company that just raised $100m and is running their performance marketing in-house (and if you don't have such a competitor, then you're either smarter than anyone else in the world, or simply not pursuing a VC-investable market).

So no, it's not easy at all. But it's doable and totally worth it.

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

#459

Post by clouddrover »

> “What Facebook was great at is they were able to see who bought and find that user’s buyer behavior – what other websites are they visiting, what other things are they doing,” Stuck said.

I'm not going to shed too many tears if businesses which were in the business of making my business their business go out of business. It was a bad business to begin with.

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

#460

Post by GekkePrutser »

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…

Nothing. I'd pay directly. And I do with many sites. But I will block anything else.

And cryptominers are not borderline malware. They are malware full stop.

Post reply on HN