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

481–490 of 632 posts

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

#481

Post by BeetleB »

afavour wrote: post #402
BeetleB wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, that's what I meant. Even though it was subsidized by ads, you still needed to pay for it.

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

#482

Post by ashtonkem »

reader_mode wrote: post #394
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.

There are products out there that would increase my quality of life that I'm not aware of or not actively thinking about. In an ideal world ads are about informing the consumer, so absolutely ads can provide value to you as well. One of the recent life improving products I never thought about before an ad is an electric toothbrush - honestly I saw them but I considered it a silly gadget. Saw a plug in a random video,…

Sometimes ads bring items into your life that improve it. That’s not going to be the majority of cases though, usually ads will bring products into your life for the good of someone else, which is bad.

If you didn’t have ads, your dentist would have told you about electric toothbrushes.

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

#483

Post by chefkoch »

midhhhthrow wrote: post #466
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.

>If you don’t want to be manipulated by ads then just don’t be.

If you are depressed, just don't be?

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

#484

Post by randcraw »

joreilly wrote: post #406
jimkleiber wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bef…

Totally agree. To that end, I'd like to propose a new inverse model for advertising in America where every consumer gets to sell airtime on their eyeballs. Each time an advertiser wants to promote something to me, I get to charge them a fee — aprice that's set by me. Henceforth, every advertiser who wants to stick their ad in my face must pay for the privilege to do so.

Now that Near Field Comm has arrived and active invasive advertising soon is likely follow us everywhere we go, it's time we consumers reasserted ourselves and took back control of our eyeballs.

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

#485

Post by nottorp »

From TFA: “I don’t think anyone truly understands how many businesses in the world are 100% dependent on Facebook,”

... proceeds to lament said small businesses ...

If you ask me, if businesses have come to be 100% dependent on Facebook, isn't Facebook a monopoly that should be broken up?

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

#486

Post by [deleted] »

ako wrote: post #436
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We pay for internet access. When I first used the web in 1993, the internet fee was covered by the tuition I paid, as only universities, government and a relatively small number of corporations were connected. Later, ISPs were formed and we began paying for home access. The "entitlement" we pay for, IMO, is access to a network free from surveillance and advertising, or at least one where we can navigate around that.…

How much of that money for internet access goes to facebook? How are they supposed to develop and maintain their website from zero money they get from you paying for internet access? How are you going to put all your content online if they don't invest in developing and maintaining their services?

[deleted]

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

#487

Post by atoav »

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…

Run ads but don't target them. Target them by paying facebook groups or individuals to post them, give FB a share.

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

#488

Post by BLKNSLVR »

zarkov99 wrote: post #93
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe don't use Facebook at all? And block any and all Facebook DNS queries with a PiHole.

Can you actually use PiHole to serve DNS for your Android? I was able to direct my Linux systems to my PiHole but my Android phone seemed to not care a wit about my internal DNS.

I've solved this problem by hosting a VPN server behind the network-wide PiHole DNS, and I have my Android phone connected to the VPN whilst on mobile data.

(I haven't yet worked out how to automate connection to VPN once out of range of my home wi-fi, or disconnection when in range, but doing it manually isn't much hassle).

I also have a cloud-hosted PiHole instance (planned as a service to friends and family), but that's still a work in progress that I'd actually semi-forgotten about...

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

#489

Post by syrrim »

nottorp wrote: post #485

From TFA: “I don’t think anyone truly understands how many businesses in the world are 100% dependent on Facebook,” ... proceeds to lament said small businesses ... If you ask me, if businesses have come to be 100% dependent on Facebook, isn't Facebook a monopoly that should be broken up?

Monopolies aren't illegal. Abuse of monopoly through anti-competitive practices is illegal.

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

#490

Post by spideymans »

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 am part of this "we", and yet I ask myself, what am I willing to give as indirect payment? What other options are there?

I would like to see us move to direct payments. If direct payments were the norm, the web would be less polluted with UX anti-patterns and other crap.

There's nothing particularly extreme about this idea. We pay for all our products and services in the physical world. We pay for streaming music and video. Heck, even in social networking, people pay/paid to use WhatsApp, iMessage and BBM, which are/were two of the largest messaging platforms (BBM and WhatsApp had monthly fees and iMessage is paid for with device purchases).

If your social media platform cannot convince people to pay, say, $1.99/month, perhaps it just isn't enriching the lives of your end users, and thus shouldn't exist. A lot of people (particularly those focused on growth hacking) would say this is a flaw of direct payments, but I view it as a feature.

Post reply on HN