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

551–560 of 632 posts

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

#551

Post by largbae »

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…

There are plenty of examples: Microsoft Office 365, Netflix, YouTube's paid service, Amazon Prime. Let me pay Facebook or Google for the services I value. They might even be cheaper to deliver if my data wasn't constantly harvested and correlated.

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

#553

Post by awillen »

gonehome wrote: post #516
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…

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.

I don't think you're right about this.

Highly targeted advertising disproportionately benefits the little guy. I say this as a little guy, running a small dog treat e-commerce company. Almost all of my new customer acquisition is by way of Facebook ads.

If you get rid of Facebook ads and go back to the non-targeted, TV commercial and newspaper type ads, my company might not survive. Purina, though? They'd be fine. They can afford to spend enormous amounts, and they've got a range of products that means their potential customer base is much bigger than mine.

Your local vet can affordably reach pet owners in their area with targeted advertising. If it goes away, that will hurt them and greatly benefit VCA (huge, nationwide chain of vet hospitals).

You're right in the sense that my business model would become inviable, but the result is that you're going to concentrate power even more heavily among the largest corporations. Is that really a good thing?

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

#554

Post by pavlus »

dillondoyle wrote: post #408
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…

Some of that 'offline' pervasive tracking you describe does exist! Not on the scale of the internet and you give some good examples that are egregious. a lot of it is just 'adtech' bs, but it's there. and the traditional in-store transaction data marketplace is huge. Companies have been tracking you and your purchases around forever. passive bluetooth IDs track you in store - though didn't iOS mitigate that by changi…

Mobile carrier providers sell flow rates of people through city spots with detailed demographics, so they could target better. At least I know it happens in my country.

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

#555

Post by batch12 »

villasv wrote: post #265
janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

> 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.

As an aside, my favorite ads on Pandora are the ones in languages I don't speak.

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

#556

Post by intev »

danbruc wrote: post #533
intev wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take my Disney example. All what you said applies to that example too. Where does their revenue come if not from you? They could make entrance free and make money on what you buy inside. In fact, you can go further with this. You should not pay for any government services other than taxes. Where does the government revenue come if not from you? Why should they charge for things like drivers license renewals. Everythi…

I don't get your Disneyland example. I replied to comments saying users are getting to use Facebook for free but that is not true, they are paying indirectly via ads. Did anyone claim that you get Disneyland for free? No, you pay for it. Some part with the ticket price, some part when you pay food and drinks, some part with merchandise, some part maybe later when you watch your next Disney movie as the whole thing is…

> And it matters how you divide it up. You could have a high ticket price and give away all the food for free but that big upfront payment would probably be off-putting for many even if they end up not paying more. For people who only want to ride some roller-coaster and not eat and drink your offering is now not attractive. Other people would exploit your offering, eating only the most expensive stuff in huge quantities.

Bingo! This is exactly my point! To go off what you said, if Disneyland operated like how you described (selling your data for income), the park would be completely different. They would be optimized to collect that data because the whole park was built on the premise that everything is free and we are going to siphon as much from you in the form of data. Every ride in the park will be built to gather that data. However since Disneyland is not that, they haven't optimized for data collection. It's built on making you happy by the time you leave, not making you spend as much time as possible in the park. You seem to want to walk into a Disneyland that's optimized for data collection and be like "Wow you guys are collecting too much data! You guys anyway make money from me buying stuff! Just stop collecting my data! I pay for all I use indirectly though the stuff I buy!" Again looping back to the things you mentioned about two Disneylands - they are completely different. It was you who changed in between. Suddenly you feel that they are not entitled to your data. But you've been giving them your data for years, and got them hooked on it. And now suddenly you are disgusted. Nothing wrong with changing or wanting different things but you feeling disgusted suddenly says a lot more about you than them.

Personally I think its a necessary change but I would have liked to seen it implemented in a more regulatory level but over a longer period of time so everyone has time to change. Apple is acting in an extremely predatory manner. They are forcibly lowering the quality of their competitor's ad network quickly so suddenly their ad network becomes a lot more viable. I wouldn't be surprised to see a big jump in the ad network spend over the next few years. They're doing all this under the guise of protecting the user but it's obviously bullshit. This is very clear with their vehement opposition of right to repair. They don't care about the consumers. They want to keep growing and they will keep doing so by whatever means necessary (under the guise of protecting consumers) to achieve this goal.

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

#557

Post by NoPicklez »

villasv wrote: post #265
janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

> 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.

For me when I say relevant ads, I truly mean ads that are based on the things I do, the things I buy and the interests I have. If I bought a new 4wd car, I wouldn't mind seeing ads for bull bars or tow bars because these are things I'd potentially be searching for anyway.

If I had random ads as you say (truly random), I don't want/or need to see tampon ads in my feed as a male. Which is what you might end up with. Conversely, if I just purchased a new 4WD, I don't need to see ads for a new Sedan.

If I'm going to see ads I may as well see ones that are somewhat relevant right? Advertisements are truly that, consumerism triggers and the only way to stop that is to stop ads altogether.

Happy to discuss my thoughts, but that's my line of thought.

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

#558

Post by tatersolid »

asdff wrote: post #419
jfoutz wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amusing example. I'd guess that car enthusiasts are aware of Sonoma for various reasons. I suspect they'd get some exposure to California wine inadvertently through that connection.

You can go to any gas station in the nation and walk out with a bottle of California wine for about $3.

You missed the reference: Sonoma has a famous race track; hence car enthusiasts already know about Sonoma and its location in California wine country.

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

#559

Post by frickinLasers »

Auracle wrote: post #475
frickinLasers wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mostly "boost" posts to my page, for what it's worth. Also, all three of those are worthless for photographers. We're not like a plumber where as long as the job is done right and priced well you're good. Our style is why you're hiring us, so an ad showing one of my images makes a lot of sense.

I had not thought of that. I'd still rather see it on a local billboard, but as the sibling post says, my opinion is irrelevant anyway.

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

#560

Post by yowzadave »

janpot wrote: post #165

Often I hear the argument, people saying "I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads". But the result of the tracking is not only that you get "relevant" ads, it's that your timelines and your feeds and your news gets tweaked in ways that makes you engage with ads as much as possible. Not only do you get manipulated in buying stuff you didn't ask for (ads in general). You're also getting spoonfed content t…

I’m always shocked at how non-relevant the ads I see are. How many Ph.D’s at Google have dedicated their careers to targeting me more correctly, and yet: constant ads for stretchy water-wicking pants (I don’t go camping), solid brass pencil shavers (can’t remember the last time I used a pencil), and dating sites for seniors (I’m married and in my 30’s). Are these people just bad at their jobs?

Don’t get me wrong, I prefer it this way. But you’d think they’d be better at it by now.

Post reply on HN