[deleted]
Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
511–520 of 632 posts
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
As soon as ad supported free services start shutting down because of ad blocking and lowered clickthrough rates on ads because of targeting being blocked, most people will probably start changing their minds. (The alternative being maintaining 10-20+ paid subscriptions.) For now, all this change means is that users who are opted-in to tracking are subsidising those who aren't.
You seem to think it’s a bad thing. I’d argue “Free” products destroy innovation. It’s extremely hard to beat gmail or Facebook without massive VC funding.
Underrated comment, well said. The "free" model supports billionaires and mega big tech.
When paid services are normalized, it opens up a huge amount of potential for smaller players to innovate.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
I vaguely recall that Google used to use text ads. Not sure if they still do, or if I recall correctly.
From a Google search I made in the last hour, the top 6 search results were all text ads.
I wasn't sure, I haven't used Google search (directly) for years now. I guess I could have checked. I didn't realize that until I saw your comment.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Y'all should really start naming manufacturers and models so I can avoid them.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
Trailers were originally at the end of the movie (hence the name).
They got converted to pre-views pretty early on though because at the end of the movie people didn't stick around to watch them.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#516I 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…
A complete collapse of the viability of targeted advertising would be totally fine with me.
The business models that would become viable in that reality would be a better equilibrium and the incentives would be better aligned between software companies and their users.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#517I 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 am perfectly willing to see ads as an indirect payment for free services. Show me some ads with tasteful photography, good art, or a nice pun. I might even click on them and buy something! This is not new, we have been doing this for centuries.
What we currently have are hardly good ads in any way, shape, or form. They rely upon invasive tracking to show you lazy creepy notifications like “Oh you live in 123 Evergreen St. and bought a toaster recently? Here are ads for five other toasters!". Ugh, no thanks.
Advertising is fine. Getting rid of invasive personal tracking will allow the creativity and art to come back into advertising.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#518Earlier 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?
"How much of that money for internet access goes to facebook?"
Zero, hopefully. I am not much of a Facebook user.
"How are they going to maintain their website from zero money they get from you paying for internet access?"
That's not my concern. They ran the website without ads for years. They later received millions in investment. There is no such thing as infinite growth. The multi-billion-page website with content of pages uploaded by users for free and moderation performed by low-paid workers in other countries idea is an experiment that might be a failure. Time will tell. But as I said, I am not a user, so it is not my concern.
"How are you going to put all your content online..."
I am not going to do that. Not really my thing. I prefer to submit my public thoughts and ideas to HN. If I want to communicate and share stuff with family, friends and colleagues I do not think using a page on someone else's website is a great solution. Peer-to-peer makes more sense.1 The fees I pay for internet access cover that cost.
1 However I do not believe Facebook's "assistance" is needed, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirehog
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I call it a sound challenge to your fallacious argument from profitability. Your non sequitur derailed the conversation.
Re: Facebook users said no to tracking, and now advertisers are panicking
#520Marketing, the entirety of it, is a machine of lies. Its sole purpose is to convince me to buy a product I wasn't looking for in the first place.
Marketing is arrogant (we are the best), misleading (overpromise, leave out unfavorable information), manipulative (fear of missing out, social pressure, pricing something as x.99$) and loud.
Imagine the above as a person, randomly popping up in your view about a thousand times a day, screaming at you. The person also follows you everywhere, takes notes of everything you do.
Marketing perpetuates consumer culture, stimulating demand that didn't even exist.
Marketing lacks any form of basic human decency.
It's depressing that the smartest minds in our world seem to have an existential dependency on the above.