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

Why I Work on Ads

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 882 posts

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#181

Post by lwhi »

ape4 wrote: post #111
kristjankalm wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

advertising is the primary driver for clickbait and emotion-driven content. it enables The Daily Mail, it results in youtube's algorithm hell, it's why facebook exists. 'clicks = money' is bad for mental health. as long as wikipedia et al are free, give me subscription-based web all day.

Good point, but I think headline writers that don't need clicks for advertising money would still write headlines that make people click - the popularity of a writer or article is one measure of success.

I don't think they'd face the same pressure.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#182

Post by exhilaration »

mrblampo wrote: post #171
the_snooze wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The ads. Aren't. The problem. The stalking is. Exactly. If you want online ads done right, look no further than how podcasts do it. The medium doesn't allow for stalking. Podcast producers often stake their own reputation by voicing the ads themselves. That editorial freedom lets them be creative and respectful of their audiences. And advertisers can use podcast-specific coupon codes to attribute ad campaigns to sal…

> The medium doesn't allow for stalking. Huh. Are you sure? I don't know anything about how podcast advertising works, but it sounds like you're assuming the full audio track, complete with ads, is the same everywhere and always.

Relevant:

Spotify will use everything it knows about you to target podcast ads https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/8/21056336/spotify-streaming...

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#183

Post by driverdan »

underyx wrote: post #60
omginternets wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I don't think that's why people are downvoting. Speaking for myself, it's because his analysis focuses only on the benefits of ads, and conveniently ignores the actual ethical problems ( e.g. large-scale collect…

> ignores the actual ethical problems (e.g. large-scale collection of personal information) I find it ironic to see this brought up as the first example of problems, when this is exactly what Google's FLoC intends to solve. The same FLoC that has so vocally been rejected by HN recently.

Many of us believe that targeted ads without prior opt-in are unethical regardless of how they're implemented. Creating new ways to track users without opt-in is just as unethical.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#184

Post by NullPrefix »

whitepaint wrote: post #129

Aren't effective ads good for society? Don't they make us prosperous? Jobs are created, people get cheaper goods, many small businesses emerge?

How did you come to the conclusion that people get cheaper goods? Cost of ads has to be included in the product pricing.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#185

Post by qsort »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #92
qsort wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An engineer building effective adtech is similarly behaving ethically according to their own career path. Lawyers effectively defending awful clients, for example, managing to get them off the hook on a technicality, are likewise generating massive negative externalities for society at large. It's either both or neither, and I'm not comfortable going down that path.

> An engineer building effective adtech is similarly behaving ethically according to their own career path The phrase "Effective adtech" is really downplaying the amount of unethical shit involved in building it. It could be effective without turning the internet into a race to the bottom. It could be effective without third party tracking, it could be effective without vacuuming every bit of data possible from every…

The core of my argument is that an engineer building the product is performing their duty. You don't have to sell me on the fact that ads are bad. I hate all ads.

I'm a developer myself and I've never faced the dilemma, but I don't feel like blaming others for not wanting to become judges of good and evil. Like in the case of a lawyer, doing your job and doing it well is in and of itself ethical.

I really can't draw a line in the sand where adtech is unacceptable but $something_else is, just because I have such an hatred for advertisement.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#186

Post by lwhi »

raspyberr wrote: post #59
ipaddr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outcry would be huge if everything went to a pay model.

I foresee micropayments being extremely common place in the future. Something like a digital wallet browser extension. And instead of paying 5p to watch a video, you will instead pay 5p to skip 3 minute ads.

I'd be happiest with a daily subscription model.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#187

Post by jefftk »

dooglius wrote: post #94
jasode wrote: post #29

The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I will offer a contrarian opinion as a user whose salary does not depend on advertising: the advertising model for using Google search and watching Youtube videos works better for me as a consumer . The alternati…

> most friction-free Maybe it's personal taste, but signing into an account is much more pleasant for me than watching an ad. As for the monetary cost, it only takes one ad per year that works on you to lose as much money anyway. > Advertising should be open and transparent. If business of ads are truthful Ads are not truthful because they are highly incentivized to lie > I will sometimes pay to see ads. E.g. I pay $…

> it only takes one ad per year that works on you to lose as much money anyway

Only if you regret the purchase, no? For example, I subscribed to CBS (now Paramount+) because I saw ads for a show I was interested in watching (Picard).

(I realize lots of advertising does not follow this model)

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#188

Post by cm2012 »

nairoz wrote: post #115
wzdd wrote: post #79

> Paywalls. You pay with your money. > Ads. You pay with your attention. Pretty disingenuous. Ads: You pay with your attention, and, ultimately, either your money or the money of someone who trusts you. This is only not the case to the extent that advertising doesn't actually work, in which case the ethical problems have not stopped for this person.

Indeed, in the full picture there must be someone paying and making this advertising profitable. If ads were not working, I don't know where this money would go.

They work by connecting people to products they're interested in.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#189

Post by PieUser »

stevenicr wrote: post #166
jasode wrote: post #29

The author jefftk is getting unfairly downvoted maybe because cynics just see it as a version of, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I will offer a contrarian opinion as a user whose salary does not depend on advertising: the advertising model for using Google search and watching Youtube videos works better for me as a consumer . The alternati…

If "The alternative of paying $9.99/year for Youtube" was really an option - I would buy it for at least 4 kids I know, and two adults that need it, to remove the horrible ads, especially on mobile. Get me started on the ads that come with play store apps and "free games". however at $12/month that would be $864 per year to help them. I would jump at $60 / year for 6 people.. heck that would save me on comcast overag…

Well I wouldn't. To each their own.

Re: Why I Work on Ads

#190

Post by stan_rogers »

jefftk wrote: post #148
omginternets wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Starting at "But the biggest issue I see people raising is the privacy impact of targeted ads..." Yes, that's literally all you have to say on the subject. The very next paragraph is about how this helps keep ads relevant...

> that's literally all you have to say on the subject Not at all! First I talk about the economic benefit of targeted ads ("Most products are a much better fit for some people than others..."), then how it works today ("Historically, ads like this have been built on top of third-party cookies..."), then how it can work without cross-site tracking ("build browser APIs that will allow this kind of well-targeted adverti…

Sorry, that's still attempting to justify the unjustifiable. The only ethical way of targeting is content relevance, which allows inference of the audience interest without using any audience data other than what they're currently looking at.
Post reply on HN