Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

kbb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 244 posts

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#201

Post by quickslowdown »

user3939382 wrote: post #191
tantalor wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people might prefer an ad which is relevant to their location over something extremely generic and less useful. Sharing location does not necessarily need to impact privacy.

I think you may actually be right but I always react with disgust and amazement at the concept of wanting ads that are “better” or “more useful”. To me, that fact that you’re making an unsolicited pitch to me to capture my money is an insult and assault on my attention. Even if it somehow happened to align with something I wanted, I then wouldn’t want it from that company.

I'm with you on this. I don't even know how to have a conversation about ads with someone whose position is anything other than "fuck psychologically manipulating people into buying something they don't need and didn't want 2 minutes ago."

I block ads anywhere I can. I don't watch tv, listen to radio, watch youtube, etc. I basically don't see ads. And when I see or hear one out in the world, I immediately shift my focus elsewhere. It's automatic at this point, I hear or see the start of an ad and immediately dissociate or turn my attention elsewhere.

I'm not interested in splitting hairs over " acceptable" advertising, because that's an oxymoron to me.

I understand this is a hardline stance. But ads should really be annoying the shit out of all of us. People discussing the benefits of privacy encroachment for the sole purpose of "serving me better ads" are, in my opinion, missing the point. Or at least missing my point. I don't want ads, especially ones that are targeted based on data collected from me. These are the most likely to effectively sway me towards buying something.

If I want something, I'll go online and search for it and might decide to buy it. I don't need some marketing schmuck who spent their entire 8 hour day trying to build a perfect string of words and sound effects designed to trigger deep seated biological responses in me. If I want your product, I will find it.

Sorry for the rant.

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#202

Post by quickslowdown »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #130

Many industries have run out of ideas for new products/features. The only card they have left is more and more control of the lives. At least until AGI is reached when we're not needed and can be disposed of.

I'm just curious who they think will buy their shit when the whole market has no income. I guess nobody has ever accused a CEO of having foresight beyond the next 3 months.

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#203

Post by 28304283409234 »

smackeyacky wrote: post #50
NickC25 wrote: post #16

Absurd that cars are now seen as an advertising platform by car makers. A car's stereo or display system randomly blasting ads at you (the driver) should be treated for what it really is - intentionally distracting the driver when the vehicle is in operation. That shit should be illegal. It's dumb at best, and incredibly dangerous at worst.

Well, AM and FM radio are plagued with ads, always were and always will be. As far as I can see this is just a replacement for the fact that nobody listens to radio in their car any more. There is an entire older generation that is used to ads being blasted in their cars. The visual assault is new though.

Interesting whatsboutism you have there.

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#204

Post by ziddoap »

gruez wrote: post #200
ziddoap wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any reason to believe they won't have a higher ad-free tier instead? I mean, this is still awful, right? Subscriptions for the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on? > Seems to work fine with streaming platforms, for instance. It's awful here, too, in my opinion. But tolerable because I didn't spend multiple years paying to own the product.

>I mean, this is still awful, right? Subscriptions for the car I spent tens of thousands of dollars on? Alternatively framed: $1000/year discount for opting into ads.

The difference being that my previous car lasted near 15 years, and it was paid off in 7. Why would you want to pay a yearly fee after you're supposed to own the car, free and clear?

I'll save us the back and forth: there is no model you can present (or reframing of a model) that will make me think advertisements (or an everlasting subscription to remove advertisements) in the car that I own is okay. It's profoundly depressing that I have to write it out that explicitly.

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#205

Post by smackeyacky »

user3939382 wrote: post #191
tantalor wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people might prefer an ad which is relevant to their location over something extremely generic and less useful. Sharing location does not necessarily need to impact privacy.

I think you may actually be right but I always react with disgust and amazement at the concept of wanting ads that are “better” or “more useful”. To me, that fact that you’re making an unsolicited pitch to me to capture my money is an insult and assault on my attention. Even if it somehow happened to align with something I wanted, I then wouldn’t want it from that company.

Its generally not unsolicited though. Using free services that are ad supported implies the consent you will hear advertisements.

The Jeep situation is weird in some ways - is the car cheaper because it's ad supported? What did the owners sign up for?

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#206

Post by alistairSH »

gruez wrote: post #198
alistairSH wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the owners know they would be served ads when they purchased the car? That’s not clear to me.

Unless you go to every transit board meeting, you probably won't know that your local bus is going to have digital ad displays plastered on them either. Even then, such issues rarely come up as a ballot initiative so the most you can do is make an impassioned speech and hope they reverse course. So both cases are pretty similar, actually. You're choosing something (car brand/politician), vaguely hoping they serve you…

Uh, buses have had ads on the sides forever, at least in the US.

Buying a car, which haven’t had ads previously, only to discover after the fact that it serves ads is a change to the status quo. Even more so if the ads were pushed via firmware update and not something that was originally spec’ed (no clue if this is what happened, but sounds plausible, given lack of details).

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#207

Post by gruez »

alistairSH wrote: post #206
gruez wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you go to every transit board meeting, you probably won't know that your local bus is going to have digital ad displays plastered on them either. Even then, such issues rarely come up as a ballot initiative so the most you can do is make an impassioned speech and hope they reverse course. So both cases are pretty similar, actually. You're choosing something (car brand/politician), vaguely hoping they serve you…

Uh, buses have had ads on the sides forever, at least in the US. Buying a car, which haven’t had ads previously, only to discover after the fact that it serves ads is a change to the status quo. Even more so if the ads were pushed via firmware update and not something that was originally spec’ed (no clue if this is what happened, but sounds plausible, given lack of details).

>Uh, buses have had ads on the sides forever, at least in the US.

That's why I mentioned "digital ad displays" specifically, because as other commenters have noted, are starting to pop up in some places.

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#208

Post by CHB0403085482 »

psunavy03 wrote: post #150
ericmay wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car-only infrastructure which is pervasive in America is a liability to the country and the economy. I can just not buy a TV and my life is great. Probably better. I can't not buy a car except in a few select locations if I want to participate in the economy. That's both dangerous and fragile.

At some point I really don't get how people can't just accept that historically, the US is a car-centric suburban-centric culture, and that's just who we largely are. If you want to do things like improve the environment, you can either scream and stamp your feet about it or you can meet people where they are and devise solutions that work in a car-centric culture. It just is what it is, like Brits drinking tea, Scan…

> US is a car-centric suburban-centric culture

It's a recent thing ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#209

Post by CHB0403085482 »

jryle70 wrote: post #194
ericmay wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your historical analysis is very correct. What you think of as car-centric suburban-centric culture didn't really arise until after World War II. It's really a relatively new thing, even considering how young the United States is. Obesity rates track historically with car-centric culture, should we just accept that is who we are, or can we work on cultural and policy changes that alleviate that problem?…

> Other countries like the Netherlands went through the same car-centric design phase and realized it was too expensive and bad for the country so they reverted. Where did you get the idea that they reverted? Car ownership in Netherlands has continued to rise despite widespread biking culture. https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/publications/2022/02/... https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2019/08/the-car-free-m.…

Compare & contrast ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uqbsueNvag

Having cars doesn't mean less bicycles ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HdqTZs3vjU

Re: Jeep owners fed up with in-car pop-up ads

#210

Post by somat »

worble wrote: post #77
thesuitonym wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does blocking the cookie popup allow all cookies? Seems like that would be worse in my opinion.

Under GDPR, you must opt-in. So blocking the popup is the same as no consent, if you're in the EU. I don't trust random sites on the internet to follow the law anyway, so nuking your cookies and localstorage when you close the browser or navigate away is what you should be doing if you're concerned about this sort of thing. Obviously sites I need to stay logged into get on the allowlist.

same, I feel those cookie consent dialogs are solving the problem at the wrong level, remembering that in the end the cookies were always under your control. I think the gpdr opt in tracking requirements should have been interpreted as "the browser should not persist any tracking data past the end of the session unless the user gives explicit consent to do so"

luckily some kind soul her pointed me to the cookie autodelete extension. Which does just this. I am able to add the three sites I want to keep persistence as exceptions and just let everything else burn after a day. The fun part is how it trips the firefox "looks like you have not used firefox in a while" dialog every single time. I don't fix it because that is how I know it is working

Post reply on HN