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

501–510 of 632 posts

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

#501

Post by darknavi »

smegger001 wrote: post #477
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…

I went to the theatre last weekend (first time since before the late unpleasantness) and showed up about ten minutes after the posted showtime. The attendant at the ticket booth confused asked "are you sure you don't want the next showing that one has already started". I confirmed no I wanted the one that had "started". I didn't miss any movie though just the ads.

And then there is my girlfriend, who makes use show up 10 minutes early to make sure we are in our seats for the trailers!

Honestly I don't mind the pre-movie trailers. I like movies and they give me time to go pee and stuff.

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

#502

Post by deregulateMed »

celestialcheese wrote: post #371
deregulateMed wrote: post #88

I couldn't actually find a source on this. The Bloomsburg article doesn't talk about any companies in panic.

Browse /r/ppc or /r/adops on reddit, or browse the big slack and discord channels for marketers and there's a lot of panicked posts.

I wouldn't say lots. I could only find 1 post and it wasn't panicked..

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

#503

Post by ClumsyPilot »

aerosmile wrote: post #302
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"You want proof? Look at their financial statements." Homeopathy peddlers make a killing, so does the agile consultants and th catholic Church, if this is proof they must both be right? Just because someone made loads of money doesnt mean their claims are sciebtifivally valid.

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

Your 'proof' doesn't make sence, what does 'offense' or 'moral high ground' have to do with it?

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

#504

Post by AussieWog93 »

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,…

>In an ideal world ads are about informing the consumer, so absolutely ads can provide value to you as well.

I agree with you that learning about new products can be a genuinely good thing. I don't think ads are the best way to deliver this information, though.

My wife joined a Facebook group dedicated to house cleaning, and the products the ladies have recommended (Bar Keeper's Friend, Scrub Daddy, Bissell SpotClean) have all been fantastic.

The paid ads on her Facebook are either scams, AliExpress crap sold at full price, or established brands we already know (Amazon, Big W.)

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

#505

Post by notriddle »

darknavi wrote: post #501
smegger001 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to the theatre last weekend (first time since before the late unpleasantness) and showed up about ten minutes after the posted showtime. The attendant at the ticket booth confused asked "are you sure you don't want the next showing that one has already started". I confirmed no I wanted the one that had "started". I didn't miss any movie though just the ads.

And then there is my girlfriend, who makes use show up 10 minutes early to make sure we are in our seats for the trailers! Honestly I don't mind the pre-movie trailers. I like movies and they give me time to go pee and stuff.

Trailers are the kind of ad targeting that I don’t object to. Advertising movies to me right before I see a movie is:

* Relevant. You know I’m interested in movies, since I’m at one, so you don’t have to spy on me to do it. Some theaters might be spying on me, I dunno, but they don’t have to in principle.

* Not directly interfering with my original purpose. The movie hasn’t started yet. The only thing you might be showing me before the movie is, maybe, cartoon shorts? I guess that would be more fun than ads, but the ads aren’t going to give me malware or pretend to be from the FBI when they’re not, so it’s not as bad as internet ads.

* If the theater starts advertising scams, they have a brick-and-mortar address, they’re in the same legal jurisdiction as the visitors, and everyone sees the same ads, so suing them should be an option. Everybody who visited the movie saw the same set of ads, so if it’s a scam, there’s plenty of witnesses.

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

#506

Post by notriddle »

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…

Also, because everyone sees different ads, it’s harder to gather the kind of proof that you need to sue someone for advertising a scam.

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

#507

Post by pyrale »

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…

> By "our" I mean the typical HN crowd that understands both the technological and the economical implications of this.

If we did really understand the implications of the society we live in, we would not stop at selecting "don't track me" on a phone.

We're living through a major extinction, we know that the next century is going to be a bloodbath, we know this crisis has been brought to us by productivism, and we're discussing whether it's fair to ignore calls for more consumerism on our phones.

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

#508

Post by professorsnep »

kzrdude wrote: post #329
LorenPechtel wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random ads are effectively noise. Targeted ads occasionally are of value. If there's going to be an ad, better it be a targeted one. I also have no problem with companies tracking for the purpose of seeing which ads work. I do *not* like the retargeting ads--if I didn't buy the item there's a reason! Either I didn't want it or I'm waiting for a better price, neither of which you're going to solve unless you're tellin…

Ads should be targeted to the content, not the recipient IMO. If you're reading about California wine in an article, advertise based on that - travel, wine, whatever.

Absolutely - And we already have this in the form of e.g. TV commercials, and, more recently, youtube sponsored segments. I vastly prefer getting ads relevant to what I'm currently looking at to something entirely different based on what The Algorithms decided I wanted to see.

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

#509

Post by notriddle »

SergeAx wrote: post #454
phkahler wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

The original AdSense was able to target pretty narrowly by matching adverts to the content, not to the user. The same thing seems like it would work for Facebook and YouTube.

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

#510

Post by flatiron »

ElFitz wrote: post #500
flatiron wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

My TV seriously wanted to put itself in some sort of demo mode if I didn’t connect it to wifi. That included restarting itself and redoing the settings every 30 minutes or whatever. It’s an insane ultimatum! So yeah it’s in a zone it can ping home base and nothing less. But for the 99% of people who can’t do that crap it sucks.
Post reply on HN