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

Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#161

Post by nkoren »

rcxdude wrote: post #63
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these questions are in earnest, not meant as a put-down of your position. how would you draw a line between what's okay to collect and what isn't? do you think a line could be drawn that would work for most people? would sites offer different levels of invasive tracking, and the user opts-in as far as they want? what incentive would users have to opt-in at all?

I think the line drawn would be easy: they cannot collect the data themselves, they can only use what you fill in on a form they present. Then the line is basically whatever you feel comfortable telling them, knowing it will be used for advertising. The incentive would be the standard reason ad companies give for targeted ads: given there are going to be ads, people would generally prefer they be relevant.

This is fine on the surface, but still has the potential for problems. Eg., if I were Muslim, I might be quite happy to declare that I'm interested in Halal food and would like to see advertising relevant to my interests. Win/win, right?

Now, let's say I own an apartment block and want to advertise for tenants, but I don't want any of them dirty muslims in my building. I can target my advertising to exclude people whose interests include Halal food.

Or, let's say I'm the propaganda department of an adversarial nation state, and I want to stir up communal tension. All I have to do is find people with an interest in Halal food, and target them with ads exhorting them to join other Christians in the next Crusade against the Moors. Or whatever. This was actually a common technique in the 2016 election: identify voters who, via their social connections and profile interests, are likely on the fence about Clinton vs. Trump, and also are a bit homophobic -- then target them with "Queers for Hillary" advertisments.

It's shocking how easy it is to weaponize this stuff.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#162

Post by op03 »

Kalium wrote: post #134
op03 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the direction we need to head in. ML/AI peeps dont wait for regulation. Push back on misguided attempts from mgmt and point them in different directions. I have had experiences with execs running large video services for content producers/publishers who would openly say (and therefore influence underlings and the next gen) - we know there are people who are addicted to our platforms, they have nothing better…

Maybe it's just me, but I have this vague feeling that feeding total bullshit disinformation to management in an effort to redirect substantial amounts of energy and resources towards your direction of choice might not always work out well. Unless management is genuinely mindless, it seems to me like it might work no more than once. Perhaps you've had different experiences?

I wish I could say there are rosy outcomes when dealing with hard decisions. It's always a messy fight. How messy is a good signal to decision makers of how much support or resistance there is.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#163

Post by danaris »

thu2111 wrote: post #158
danaris wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't get to make the choice themselves now. They are forced to see the advertising, whether they want to or not. Removing the advertising would, in fact, give them back choice they currently lack.

People aren't forced to do anything. They don't have to use content supported by ads, plenty of it isn't. And the biggest/best online ad networks offer controls, which nobody uses because vanishingly few people care. Banning targeted advertising would be ridiculous. I'll say it: I love targeted ads. I'd much rather have usefully targeted ads than go back to the days of DoubleClick punch the monkey garbage, or "these…

> People aren't forced to do anything.

You're not listening. Or, apparently, thinking critically about the issue.

Two things:

First, they—we—are forced to see it.

That, in itself, is already a cost to us all. It taxes our brains, in ways that have been measured.

And yes, I know that banning the targeting isn't the same as banning the advertising, but we should definitely be doing that in more of our spaces, too.

Now, second:

People do not have the choice to opt out of the data collection. Oh, sure, you can check the box on website X that says "don't sell my data," you can choose not to do business with Facebook, but you can't actually avoid the tracking and actually participate in the modern world. (Heck, in some places, you'll be tracked and profiled just from what you do in the physical world, too, through cameras and such.)

The point isn't that people are (by and large) being actively harmed by the targeting in the ads. We're being harmed by the invasion of privacy required to implement the targeting, and we're being harmed by the inability to avoid seeing the ads.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#164

Post by Razengan »

jstanley wrote: post #154
Razengan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we functioned without something doesn't imply that we're better off with it.

Agreed. The fact that we functioned without it before is of zero information content when deciding whether we should function without it again.

No, the fact that we functioned without it is a fact that we can function without it.

And literally billions of people do function without targeted advertising, right now.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#165

Post by mardifoufs »

ddevault wrote: post #7

Why don't we just ban advertising?

That would only lead to more and more websites asking for payment info, so no thanks. I'd rather have ads that I can block or just tolerate than completely close off the web a part from some niche, personal websites. Ad tracking is nothing compared to having my real life identity linked to me everywhere on the web, and possibly get locked off most of it if they decide to ban me at some point.

"The good old days" where the internet was mostly ad free (a very short amount of time after becoming mainstream) was nothing like the internet we have now. It was small, amateur websites that were akin to blogs. That's cool, but to completely cripple the much more useful internet we have now because people don't like ads would be a disaster. It's baffling to me how some people would prefer to just ban/restrict everything they don't like. Just block the ads!

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#166

Post by jstanley »

Razengan wrote: post #164
jstanley wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The fact that we functioned without it before is of zero information content when deciding whether we should function without it again.

No, the fact that we functioned without it is a fact that we can function without it. And literally billions of people do function without targeted advertising, right now.

Nobody is saying we can't function without advertising!

But we can function without lots of things. The fact that we can function without something isn't a strong argument in favour of getting rid of it.

I don't even like advertising. I'm not trying to support advertising. I'm just addressing the logical fallacy.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#167

Post by Nasrudith »

stoev wrote: post #100

There is a very important point made in this article that is unfortunately lost in-between all the other arguments: “Meanwhile, the ability to track users wherever they go tends to shift ad revenue from higher quality sites to less reputable ones. “The way the adtech system works is, it follows the reader from Wired.com all the way down to the cheapest possible place, the basement bottom-feeders on the internet, and…

The claim about quality sounds incredibly dubious and really gives away the game is about felony interference with a business model. "High quality" is downright narcissistic witg delusions of grandeur.

High production value can and is absolute shit. Gell-Mann amnesia effect says hi. The problem isn't the competition but that the old guard sucked at their job.

I am no fan of targetted advertising but I despise attempts to control the internet for the sake of dinosaur propagandists. They need to just die already and stop crapping out bullshit.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#168

Post by bryan_w »

RestlessMind wrote: post #149
stoev wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are niche categories that would be hard to get. But for your two specific examples you could use those simple sets of criteria: 1. Target specific articles with advice for older runners in running publications. 2. Target Italian recipes in cooking websites only for users located in Denver. You don’t need to do those things manually, it can be automated. Sure, it might not deliver the scale that FB and Goo…

> 1. Target specific articles with advice for older runners in running publications. Who reads running publications these days? Unless you meant online blogs etc, in which case: > 2. Target Italian recipes in cooking websites only for users located in Denver. That is targeted advertising, IIUC. You are targeting users based on their geolocation, which should be banned as per the article.

Also this would be more expensive in both time and cost

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#169

Post by Nasrudith »

morgengold wrote: post #151

Targeted advertising should be banned. There is absolutely no NEED for it. The advertisement industry will tell you that you want to be targeted so that you get the products you need/want. It's a twisted argument. I rarely/never got targeted with something useful. If consumers could freely choose, they always want ad-free stuff. Massive societal costs come with targeted advertising. Especially psychological, politica…

Having no need for something is a very dangerous mentality or rationale for banning anything. You have no need to speak.

Likewise keep in mind the risks of a permission culture and burden of proof. The Tautology of Schedule 1 drugs set back research over half a century and indirectly killed many people. Prompted by cynically manipulated hysteria no less.

Re: Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

#170

Post by Nasrudith »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #51
avalys wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the cost that advertising imposes exactly?

People have finite attention tokens to spend per day. Attention tokens are consumed when you make a conscious and deliberate decision to invest time in something, but they are also consumed when someone approaches you and talks to you. Of course, people close to us usually are mindful of not consuming too many of our attention tokens. And some interruptions are useful to you, so they are welcome. Advertisements, on t…

That conception of attention as harm has been circulating as a meme since Zine days and it frankly isn't very sane as focus, much less if the obvioud corralaries are considered outside if justifying what they want in a context.

Dressing to show off would count as harm. Just looking unusual would also qualify and justify all sorts of bullying and maltreatment because it "robs attention".

Onviously they would plead that it is different but accepting their framework it is still "robbing attention".

It brings to mind the farce of Marxist Exploitation where buying wheat for a dollar and milling your flour is fine but buying $20 of flour, milling it and selling it for $40 is suddenly robbing the farmer.

Post reply on HN