Facebook could sell less invasive adds targeting without selling you. E.g. based on groups. E.g. if I join group called "cat lovers", they could show me cat related adds when I go to that group page, or if my current visible stream has that groups' posts. But what they actually do is they package me as sellable with all my private info and perhaps whatever I have written ever or any sites I have visited.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
21–30 of 37 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#22The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the si…
That only proves that users click on tailored ads, not that they necessarily want them. Perhaps many users would rather ads be unrelated to their interests, so that they would be easier to ignore. Perhaps there is an unwanted psychological burden associated with going to a website for a specific purpose, and being distracted by something that is somewhat related to their general interests, such that it becomes more d…
> So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers.
Note that users never visit websites that don't exist.
Websites that run ads actually exist and are profitable.
By visiting the sites they're admitting that this is what they "want" ...
It's a weird definition of "want" but consumers are being irrational.
They say they don't want ads but they constantly go to sites that offer ads.
If you ask them do they want Facebook spying on them they say no yet the line up to give their data to companies that are spying on them.
Also, between two ads, if the user does click on an ad they click on the better targeted ad. So by definition they like targeted ads.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#23Mark Zuckerberg is a sociopath, the world would probably better off if he had a stroke five years ago.
I'm shocked that shareholders have kept him around - his personal brand is a huge liability for the company.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only proves that users click on tailored ads, not that they necessarily want them. Perhaps many users would rather ads be unrelated to their interests, so that they would be easier to ignore. Perhaps there is an unwanted psychological burden associated with going to a website for a specific purpose, and being distracted by something that is somewhat related to their general interests, such that it becomes more d…
> So consumers want a free lunch. It may not be logical from a site owner's perspective, but it makes sense to consumers. Note that users never visit websites that don't exist. Websites that run ads actually exist and are profitable. By visiting the sites they're admitting that this is what they "want" ... It's a weird definition of "want" but consumers are being irrational. They say they don't want ads but they cons…
I visit the movie theatre but I don't 'want' to slog through a cold parking lot or jockey at the popcorn stand for my slushy.
We want the sites that offer the info we seek. Ads come and go, and when they get obnoxious we complain. Of course we do.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#25There are many other companies which collect the same amount or more data than Facebook does and they use it for the same purpose: targeted advertising. Putting the other issues Facebook had with Cambridge analytica or getting 50 million users' info hacked aside, I'm struggling to understand why articles like this from NYTimes are pointed just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in they are the only ones who provide t…
> I'm struggling to understand why articles like this from NYTimes are pointed just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in they are the only ones who provide targeted advertising platform. Facebook has a recognizable face that can make statements that can be critiqued, the ill-defined "many other companies" do not. Focusing on Facebook make the issue easier to understand, but the issues raised apply to all targeted ad…
> Focusing on Facebook make the issue easier to understand, but the issues raised apply to all targeted advertising companies that try to justify themselves to consumers
Then they should also mention that in their articles. Because in the existing form, for a not techie people it sounds like _only_ Facebook has been doing this and that's not the case.
"Many other companies" includes Google, Twitter, Ad networks like Adroll etc. I don't think there is a need to list all of them in here :)
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#26Regardless of how one feels about Facebook, has anyone stopped to ask why Facebook and Zuckerberg are getting such an avalanche of negative coverage from the mainstream media? Why have they suddenly united against him?
Partly Trump derangement syndrome, plus he won't crack down on speech and thought the way the free press wants him to.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#27The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the si…
> If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite.
Then people don't do what they want. Because they're weak-willed and/or being manipulated.
If you give someone cake and they eat it, does that indicate that they want to be fat?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think culturally facebook could never make the transition with any sort of customer confidence, but I really think they could offer a paid facebook with no ads and more transparency on the data. People would pay $10 a month for that. I mean, slanging user data and social manipulation tooling to any guy with a stack of cash is probably way more lucrative, but a move like that would even sway me a bit to wonder if th…
The issue is that a paid Facebook wouldn't make any money. This wouldn't even impact the bottom line. Services like Evernote have < 5% of the userbase paying.
I think "wouldn't make any money" isn't true. They could keep offering the current product but offer one for people who wanted to pay. Like I said, I think this would be less lucrative than their current platform, but it would demonstrate that they have an idea to "disrupt" their own business model with something that resembles morals or actual innovation.
It won't happen and they'll keep shifting and never be able to keep up with their expected growth as people abandon them over the next 10 years. I'm pretty sure they don't care and the point of their platform is international psyops and piles of gross data bucks.... It is possible that they could find a soul and do something interesting instead of predictable and lame.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#29The research here is amazingly flawed. They ASKED users what they wanted. If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same ones that won't pay for the si…
> If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact opposite. Then people don't do what they want. Because they're weak-willed and/or being manipulated. If you give someone cake and they eat it, does that indicate that they want to be fat?
It’s always so difficult to discuss issues like this due to a limitation of English. In particular the words “they” and “want” are far too ambiguous.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that a paid Facebook wouldn't make any money. This wouldn't even impact the bottom line. Services like Evernote have < 5% of the userbase paying.
I think "wouldn't make any money" isn't true. They could keep offering the current product but offer one for people who wanted to pay. Like I said, I think this would be less lucrative than their current platform, but it would demonstrate that they have an idea to "disrupt" their own business model with something that resembles morals or actual innovation. It won't happen and they'll keep shifting and never be able t…
In theory if you outbid all the advertisers you could more or less achieve this. But I’ve read some reports saying that users are worth on average something like 50 bucks a quarter, and have users would be worth way more, so it would be pricey.