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

461–470 of 632 posts

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

#461

Post by jayspell »

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…

I remember a time in the late 90's when it was considered etiquette to click on the ads to support the websites.

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

#462

Post by aerosmile »

pseudalopex wrote: post #309
aerosmile wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went out of my way not to give Facebook any moral high ground, and yet you still managed to get offended.

Snark isn't a sign of offense.

Call it what you want, the outcome is the same. You want to say [A], but before you say it, you have to start with [B] just not to get the conversation derailed by call-it-what-you-wants. And it turns out, the call-it-what-you-wants are still going to do their thing, pretending this is Reddit.

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

#463

Post by joreilly »

jimkleiber wrote: post #438
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…

> 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... Reminds me of how one day, I think in SF, I was trying to go around without reading things and just realized there are so many things shouting at me with words, especially billboards and other forms of public advertising…

> Reminds me of how one day, I think in SF, I was trying to go around without reading things and just realized there are so many things shouting at me with words, especially billboards and other forms of public advertising. I would love to even have a city here in the US experiment with something like this.

I'm in the exact same position, I'd love to see a large-scale experiment to determine the economic and psychological impact of removing public advertising, or at least reducing it to a more "comfortable" level, whatever that may be. The Canadian government experimented a bit with universal basic income in the 70s, and more again recently with COVID, so perhaps they'd be willing to give this a shot as well.

> I would, too, especially as a consumer, and yet, as a producer, I wonder how annoyed I would be without ads. Maybe there's a balance, and I believe needs to be have more consumer voice, and less producer voice.

Another concern/shortcoming I forgot to address above is what companies will do to get their products out there; will advertising take a more subtle, perverse tone if they're not allowed billboards and banner ads? Perhaps a middle-ground will stop a more covert extreme from appearing. Perhaps I'm falling for the middle ground fallacy.

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

#464

Post by joreilly »

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.

Parroting jimkleiber, I like the distinction between advertising in public and private spaces, although I suppose it would be a matter of being adamant that anywhere that isn't in a private building, isn't private space.

> 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

I lived in Germany for a few months and was shocked to see advertisements for cigarettes on the sides of the local buses. I suppose this will be changing in 2022, so a good first step [0].

[0]: https://www.thelocal.de/20200918/germany-set-to-ban-cigarett...

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

#465

Post by frickinLasers »

Auracle wrote: post #345
villasv wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I’m a photographer, and I right now I’m targeting local teenagers and their moms for high school senior portrait sessions. I would think they’d rather see that, be reminded it’s time to get them done, and possibly learn about a better photographer than seeing an ad for an ice cream maker or what have you.

Not a mom, but if I want to learn about a better [photographer/plumber/mechanic/whatever] I will use the tools that list and attempt to give accurate information about businesses (yelp, angi, BBB, ?), inadequate though they may be. My brain doesn't register your ad. If it does, I'm probably less likely to consider your business, because you shoved an intrusive internet ad in my face.

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

#466

Post by midhhhthrow »

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 just think advertisement is when other people pay for the media products you get for free, if you don’t buy the ad product. It’s a plus. Why are people so charged up about it? If you don’t want to be manipulated by ads then just don’t be.

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

#467

Post by tshaddox »

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"),

Is Facebook a "higher-grade" social networking product than other free ones that exist without the same monetization of personal data, or than other free ones that could exist without the same monetization of personal data if such monetization of personal data was considered unacceptable? I don't doubt that Facebook delivers more value to shareholders than if they were not able to monetize personal data to the same extent, but I see no reason to believe that they or their competitors would be less of a "top-grade product."

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

#468

Post by ElFitz »

leokennis wrote: post #389
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…

Re: blocking ads guilt free: Not that long ago someone posted this beautiful Banksy quote about it on HN: > “People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They ar…

> But don’t pretend that by offering your site for free and me using it for free somehow requires me to see shitty ads. If you want my money, ask for it. If your content is worth it I’ll pay for it.

One of my personal favorites: movie theatres.

You pay, a handsome amount of money, to see a movie, once, and if you happen to have the weird idea of not be just late enough to the movie, you get the wonderful, once in a lifetime opportunity… to get ads shoved in your face. Ads for food, ads for random stuff, and ads for other movies.

The best of both worlds, really.

Used to drive me crazy. Now I simply don’t go anymore.

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

#469

Post by jfoutz »

asdff wrote: post #419
jfoutz wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can go to any gas station in the nation and walk out with a bottle of California wine for about $3.

I guess fancy pants California wine then. I know the valley grows a lot of grapes. I interpreted the thread as Napa /Sonoma

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

#470

Post by tshaddox »

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 ).

Yes, and I'm sure you can jailbreak/root your mobile devices or use a VPN running Pi-hole to remove all YouTube ads. You can also download YouTube videos with youtube-dl (another feature of YouTube Premium). But for me it's well worth the $12 a month to remove ads and get mobile downloads without any hassle or nonsense.
Post reply on HN