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

521–530 of 632 posts

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

#521

Post by bradleyjg »

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"), it seems we must give something that the product providers can turn into monetary value indirectly somehow.

Do we want them to though? What would a web without free look like?

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

#522

Post by titzer »

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…

Give me the web from 1997, but just with a little more. Mostly ad-free, text, tables, webpages measured in kilobytes. It was self-supporting and didn't require megabit connections. It had chatrooms and forums and craptons of technical documentation. It was a maker's place, a hobbyist place, and a place where Mom&Pop shops could have national or global reach. There were oodles of online stores. It was considered rude to track visitors, and cookies weren't even a thing. Amazon and eBay were already a thing.

The small additions I might enjoy might be some flash games, Wikipedia, and blogs; these were early 2000s IIRC. I would actually draw the line at Youtube. It's great and all, but it could as well not be the web, but a dedicated native app for all I care, but give me the old YouTube at its very first breakeven point[1].

We pretend like the current multi-hundred billion dollar Crapshow Creeper Web full of carnival barkers hounding you every second is absolutely necessary, and it's not. What fucked up the Web was money--way too much of it. We're in a denial phase with the Web bubble desperately pumped up with steroids to support multiple 800 pound gorilla/leeches that provide little value other than "scale" (or some shit).

[1] (and Google will never publicly say when that was, but definitely before 2010--it's just that the stupid growthism mindset required absurd revenue growth to keep up with stockholder and executive greed).

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

#523

Post by fzzzy »

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,…

You are lucky you started with the one blade, it is much better than every other electric razor which has been on the market forever.

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

#524

Post by flatiron »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #514
flatiron wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It rhymes with “ram tongue”

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

#525

Post by aspaceman »

fleddr wrote: post #520

Marketing, 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 t…

> It's depressing that the smartest minds in our world seem to have an existential dependency on the above.

Not only dependent. Don't forget how many psychology PhDs get jobs at Facebook and Google instead of "helping people". Why would you work with a bunch of depressed drug addicts and wife-beaters? Why not get a joint degree in PhD and Marketing? https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/joint-doctoral-degree-in... You'll make 10x as much.

> For consumer researchers, psychology is one of the foundational disciplines that comprise the field of marketing. For psychologists, the marketplace is filled with questions and insights about human cognition and behavior.

It's so on the nose it's painful - I truly think limiting the amount a business spends on advertising would have a net good for society.

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

#526

Post by werber »

The article mentions influencers as a revenue stream and I personally love makeup and make purchases and recommendations based on a creator building a reputable brand. I would like to see that model in more spaces. Make up brands give influencers press kits and they give their honest thoughts. Today a TikToker “mass hole” got Kylie Jenner’s updated product and I watched 4 videos of her trying it out and the product that stood out the most was not liked by the creator (upgraded highlighter formula if you’re curious) but because I trust the channel I saw a product that fits into a niche I care about (a more subtle highlighter). Marketing might be getting meritocrized?

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

#527

Post by mlindner »

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")

I don't actually. If I could pay for something that gives good value and by doing so I also shut off all tracking of any kind, I'd do so, assuming it was something I was interested in.

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

#528

Post by saati »

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.

The ones willing to pay are the ones the advertisers want to track, so that won't work.

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

#529

Post by blooalien »

svachalek wrote: post #411
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other option of "what you can give" is "give up using the service". That is, if you don't want ads, if you don't want to be tracked, and you don't want to mine crypto, the remaining option is to not use the service. If you insist on none of the first three, the service providers will eventually force the fourth option on you. Or, as continuational said, you will have to pay for it.

The option to walk away if you don't like it is an illusion. Facebook and Google can get an incredible amount of data on you just by tracking your friends. Communications logs, location data, calendar information, and more. The mere existence of the model also funds the continued development of mass surveillance capabilities. I don't see the will to make it happen, anywhere, but the only way out of the current situat…

> … just by tracking your friends.

They also track and profile you across the web. Even if you have no account with them, you still get assigned an advertising ID. Everywhere you see a "Share on Facebook" button? Yeah, that button tracks you even if you never click it, and that's just one of zillions of sneaky ways you're still tracked and profiled by the modern advertising industry.

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

#530

Post by _carbyau_ »

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 the path of centralised internet advertising organisations is to blame for many ills. IE Google.

By outsourcing ads to a 3rd party the website has lost an element of control over their "own space on the internet" and hence led to mish mash crap on so many sites - and it follows you making the sites all blend into one another!

I would accept a website to host it's own static advertising - not GIF, not video, not audio - that doesn't discriminate between myself and fellow humans. A website on my browser, or any similar browser around the world, should be the same, barring accessibility differences.

This would bring us back to motoring websites having ads for cars, tech websites having ads for tech etc. People don't get tracked, they get ads relevant to their interests, and pages look cohesive and have an identity.

Post reply on HN