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

Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 428 posts

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#101

Post by phonebucket »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

> Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting.

Do you have much evidence for this?

Advertisers don’t spend big bucks blindly. Many companies have significant data science teams that keep an extremely close watch on ad spend return on investment.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#102

Post by ganzuul »

hamilyon2 wrote: post #98

I sometimes wonder, what if there was a universal governing principle, that was simple to enforce, obvious, formulated in few words, so that everyone understands it. All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing c…

Reputation.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#103

Post by slavik81 »

beeboop wrote: post #70
jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

my fiance has bought several things that she saw constantly on instagram ads

My mother bought water bottles with cat ears that were advertised on Facebook.

My wife bought a Mandalorian carpet advertised on Instagram.

I bought custom-printed Canadian postage stamps advertised on Google in wedding card-related searches. They're sold directly from Canada Post.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#104

Post by Jiro »

mabbo wrote: post #11

It takes two things for programs like "Jedi Blue" to happen. First, you need sociopaths in leadership positions who champion this 'great idea' they've figured out. These people often rise up in large companies because they are willing to do this sort of thing without any remorse. But second, you need developers to build it. A large number of them, usually, for a big project like this. Dozens of people like us knew th…

Blaming the developers is blaming the guys in the trenches. Developers are not lawyers, and the law is so complicated and so divorced from any sort of common sense that I don't think if I were in the position of one of those developers, I would have been able to tell that it was illegal. There is no such thing as software that is "obviously illegal" outside of cases like DMCA circumvention or cryptography export laws, and maybe not even then.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#105

Post by jqpabc123 »

jollybean wrote: post #54
jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

This kind of rhetoric is problematically naive. Advertising effectiveness is often vague, but it also works well in many circumstances. It takes a certain kind of hubris to suggest that all these companies spending $500B on advertising have no idea what they are doing, and that if only they listened to HN/Reddit they could save so much money and make the world a better place. The issue here is to what extent G has ma…

Please show evidence that Google's global privacy invading data collection network justifies their 3-4X premium in advertising cost over simple non-invasive alternatives. "Problematically naive" is assuming the cost is justified without any such evidence.

Amazon's ad business is currently growing at a 70% annual rate by simply displaying ads based on search words --- probably because searching on their site is an overt expression of interest in making a purchase.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#106

Post by prepend »

beefield wrote: post #51
jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

I dipped my toes to google ads the first time a few months ago. I am definitely not sure I understood it correctly, but I gave up very quickly as I got following impression[1]: 1. Google seems to define what are "relevant ads" for a given search term and if they are not deemed relevant, you are pretty much out of luck. 2. Google defines a minimum price for the auction, and won't show your ads below that even if there…

> 2. Google defines a minimum price for the auction, and won't show your ads below that even if there are no other ads shown

This is the most frustrating one for me. It’s like if eBay enforced a minimum bid and wouldn’t list items.

It’s not a true auction because of these minimum prices. It just doesn’t seem fair and transparent.

Of course, it’s Google’s site so they can choose what they like. Unless they start breaking laws.

For now, it’s just the annoyance of them not using “digital principles” by sticking to real world rules that they can make more money by adding friction rather than having an automated auction.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#107

Post by Verdex »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

The only advertising that advertisers have to do that actually makes a difference is advertising their services to their customers (and this would include an in house advertising division convincing the rest of the company that they're sufficient effective).

If they can actually show the effectiveness of an advertisement then good. If not they you fallback on "mindshare".

Really the people we need to be reaching are product owners et al.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#108

Post by guerrilla »

arthur_sav wrote: post #92
aasasd wrote: post #43

> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…

Personally, i don't think there's anything wrong with holding a monopoly as long as it stems from merit. However, we are proven time after time that power corrupts. Unless there's a regulatory body to watch their every move it seems they'll abuse their dominance to maximize profits.

Even if a monopoly were achieved on merit (I don't necessarily agree that it was in this case), the incentive to maintain that merit disappears once the power is obtained. Even if that weren't true (i.e. if power didn't corrupt) they could simply degrade naturally while the bar for entry would remain too high due to economies of scale and other reasons. And don't forget the incentives against downsizing: layoffs hurt labor, reduced consumption hurts suppliers while withdrawal of products and services hurts customers and the brand simultaneously. People have made better arguments than I have but my point is even a moments thought should make you reconsider your position.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#110

Post by indymike »

faster wrote: post #77
aasasd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I'm not sure about the current state of things, seeing as it likely has changed several times in the past few years. However, a) I'm not sure why Goog would want to bother with browser accounts otherwise, and b) my use of Chrome ceased soonish after I had the following experience in the early 2010s: - set up a new empty site, listed absolutely nowhere, on quite dedicated hosting. - open it in Chrome. - a cou…

I expect bots on a new unadvertised site within minutes. I've seen it many times. Bots are always scanning, along with script kiddies.

It is far more likely that Google found the new site from telemetry from Chrome than it is a random bot, owned by Google scanned the site within seconds.
Post reply on HN