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

491–500 of 632 posts

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

#491

Post by afpx »

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'm less concerned about incompetent advertisers (99% of the ads I see are poorly placed) than I am about rogue states (like Saudi Arabia, who buy a lot of personal data and metadata), finance and investment companies (who use our private data to rig the system against us), and criminals.

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

#492

Post by bllguo »

corford wrote: post #431
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…

Perhaps the answer is a lot of these services are less vital and desired as their MAU figures lead everyone to believe. If someone really wants or needs something, they'll find a way to pay for it (directly or indirectly) if access cannot be had any other way. Everything else is "nice to have" until the cost or friction gets a little higher than zero. The fact that people are increasingly unwilling to "pay for" thing…

nobody pays (directly) for Google search but surely most would agree search engines are vital. clearly the advertising business model has enabled certain products in a way that direct purchases could not; to reject the model wholesale seems like luddite conservatism

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

#493

Post by bllguo »

throwamon wrote: post #391
afavour wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s undeniable, though, that such a limitation would shut off access for people who can’t afford it. You see it today with newspaper paywalls and the like. I suspect the vast majority of us in HN would have no problem paying for most of these services but I’m not sure how I feel about us making those choices on behalf of those that can’t.

This argument just shows how blind people have become to the possibilities. It's not either/or. There should be at the very least an option to pay and not be tracked. Most services offer no such option.

why should there be an option? is there some kind of moral imperative?

At the market there is one way to buy, I don't get to ask for alternatives to paying upfront. This (for lack of a better term) entitlement really puzzles me. In the physical world, if I don't like the terms, I leave and don't do business. But on the internet, when people don't like the terms they flout the rules and consume anyway.

edit: I think it would be ideal to have multiple options, I would rather pay directly myself than paying by watching ads. I just have a problem with justifying refusing to pay in the way the business wants, yet still consuming their content.

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

#494

Post by elorant »

asdff wrote: post #433
elorant wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably Facebook Marketplace

Do legitimate companies actually put products on there? Whenever I check that its like craigslist but with more spam and likely stolen products. craigslist seems to have much better moderation.

They do. But in my experience only a limited part of their full inventory.

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

#495

Post by spideymans »

neoCrimeLabs wrote: post #349

Now if only there was a way to force the IOS Facebook app to use an external browser for links clicked within the app. Yeah sure, they can still track the click, but would lose visibility beyond that.

Those in-app browsers are so annoying. They make it intentionally difficult to open those pages in Safari

A potentially controversial take, but I believe that Apple can force developers to use SFSafariViewController to enhance privacy and UX, without too much blowback. SFSafariViewController is a privacy-friendly alternative that prohibits third parties from seeing your browsing data (unlike the custom in-app browsers used by apps like Instagram). I’ve yet to see a custom in-app browser that has ever provided a better experience than SFSafariViewController.

Exceptions could be provided where it makes sense. For example, I would still permit apps to load webpages owned by the developer in their own in-app browser (this is necessary for web-based logins, for example).

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

#496

Post by bllguo »

frickinLasers wrote: post #465
Auracle wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everyone says this about advertising, it's a tired narrative that has been disproven countless times in the aggregate. Advertising works. Even if you are correct about yourself (many people don't realize the subliminal impact of ads), the loss of your business is more than made up for by others.

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

#497

Post by BeetleB »

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…

It would be good to list what features are really of value to us that are funded by ads.

For me, I pay for email and web hosting. The only big thing I rely on is news, I believe. And Internet search.

Youtube is mostly useless except when I'm trying to repair stuff at home. Almost everything else falls into the category of "entertainment", for which there are plenty of alternatives that don't involve ads. If there is one thing there is no shortage of in this country, it's entertainment.

Most of the (non-news) articles I read online really don't add much to my life, and there were plenty of choices pre-Internet (e.g. magazine subscriptions).

I'm happy to get ad-subsidized stuff like they did in the old days (news + magazines) because although it was annoying, it was not invasive.

So apart from Internet search, I'm having trouble finding anything that is (invasive) ad supported that benefits my life. If most of these things will go away, I will happily revert to the old ways. I'm definitely not happier now because of ad supported services.

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

#498

Post by flatiron »

ElFitz wrote: post #468
leokennis wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Or more recently my $2k TV that shows me ads from the TV itself. Thank goodness for pi.hole (which runs great in Docker btw)!

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

#499

Post by Smoosh »

kwanbix wrote: post #403
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…

As far as I see it, tracking is there to make sure you get relevant adds. I remember the internet in the HoTMaiL era, all of the adds where mainly about casinos, porn and such, and very rarely interested to me. I personally think that if tracking is done with good intentions, it shouldn't be an issue. At least from my point of view. I rather see totally relevant ads than have again "casino/poker/porn" ads.

I suspect that in the early days of internet advertising casino/poker/porn was much more common because they were the ones willing to take a risk on advertising in the new media. Over time other more mainstream industries joined in.

I don't agree about the good intentions. The tracking is a means to an end. People are tracked to measure engagement and to target ads, both of which have the purpose of increasing the value of the advertising to the benefit of the ad networks. They don't care if you get relevant ads. They care that they can charge more for your eyeballs because they can classify you as "male, 19-29, in USA, interested in technology, art, exercise" and sell you as part of a package to companies wanting to target that market.

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

#500

Post by ElFitz »

flatiron wrote: post #498
ElFitz wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

Or more recently my $2k TV that shows me ads from the TV itself. Thank goodness for pi.hole (which runs great in Docker btw)!

Oh, true, forgot that one; it’s even better! Some also (used to?) connect to any open wifi nearby if you forgot to give it access to yours. How thoughtful…

Pretty much the reason I scorned every single "smart tv"

Post reply on HN