Insane state of today's advertising part 3 • Hacker News Board

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#391

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 2:42 PM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #361

petra wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electronic engineers face a similar problem, everyday:finding the optimal components to build stuff with. And at least in the case of standard components, they do that via parametric search tools(poring over many details), combined with vendors exposing a lot of details about products. And it works very well. I wish we had that in more fields. Would provide huge value, but it's a hard problem. But i suppose if with t…

Parametric search tools are great for Digikey, but they're very hard to implement elsewhere. They're much less useful when you only have a small number of options. They're bad at quantifying qualitative properties like fit and finish or ease-of-use. And you can only compare closely related parts, because until you drill down to the level of, say, a parametric search for exclusively PMIC-Voltage Regulators-DC-DC-Switc…

[deleted]

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#392

Post by ashark » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 2:43 PM UTC

eveningcoffee wrote: post #158

x0x0 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisers. Preroll ads are valuable because people are mostly paying attention. eg you went to youtube to watch X, and they show you 15 seconds of swiffer beforehand. The problem is there aren't enough preroll ad slots available to satisfy demand. Therefore, companies invent them. One thing I know people are doing is this: film a video every day. Talk about who cares. It could be upcoming movies; the tv show with d…

> Preroll ads are valuable because people are mostly paying attention. eg you went to youtube to watch X, and they show you 15 seconds of swiffer beforehand. Personal anecdote time. Preroll ads are the main force for me behind installing the adblocker. I just can not stand something that manipulates my flow. I call it televication of the Internet. It is unbearable. If for some reason I am not able to block them then…

> If for some reason I am not able to block them then I just do not watch them and I am not listening to them (I look elsewhere, say a lalala mantra in your mind).

Ah yes, the realization that all the spy-economy-supported content provides vanishingly little value to your life, and that if they managed to actually lock things down so you couldn't block ads it'd harm you not at all to simply stop looking at their stuff. A liberating state of mind.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#393

Post by ancap » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:20 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #371

thecrazyone wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a libertarian. And putting/enforcing rules on someone who's not aggressing you because you don't like it seems like needing coercion. You're voluntarily consuming ad-based content, no one's forcing you. If you don't like their ad-supported content, shouldn't you use only content which paid for in different ways? Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions?

>Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions? Because the rights and protections under the law that advertisers rely on only exist because of my opinion and the opinion of other citizens. Without the law, the concept of private property would be largely undefined. Corporations would not exist. There would be no limited liability, no chapter 11, no enforceable contracts, no trademarks, no…

> If we want to enjoy the protection that the rule of law affords us, we will have to accept that there needs to be some sort of social process that determines what our laws should be. It's a negotiation.

I have seen this sentiment a lot on HN as a counter to libertarian arguments, but really it's a straw man. The argument you are making is essentially: as a society we make rules, therefore we can enact rule x. Whereas the libertarian argument is (phrased in the vernacular of your counter-argument): society should only have rules which protect private property and prevent aggression.

> And no, using ad-supported services is not voluntary in any realistic sense of the word. There are many essential necessities of modern life that are ad-supported and have no real alternatives.

So? Just because person A depends upon the services of person B doesn't mean that person A can make outlandish demands on the way person B provides said services. Let A and B negotiate and determine the most agreeable terms for their cooperative exchange, sure. Alternatively, A can choose to deal with person C instead.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#394

Post by HuginnMuninn » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:22 PM UTC

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #228

brad0 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like this idea. I run a basic http server with a nodejs backend. It gets ~3000 hits a month. It costs around $6 on AWS. It costs around 0.2c per request. It would be simple to build a system that charges per use - most SaaS companies do this. The problem is that someone is willing to pay for that content and repost it on the "free web". 99% of people will read the free version (see freemium mobile games). Whi…

I would never be willing to pay per page view. I could pay some specified price on yearly basis, but per page is way out of the question. I'm fine with web sites that use adblocker-blockers. I just don't read their content. Imo that is the way of the future. Obviously these "publications" will lose readers, but maybe we also get rid of most of the junk that's floating around.

My problem is advertently blocking the small sites just to get at the big sites. It's not fair, and some really good content gets screwed over inadvertently by it. I am certainly guilty of this.

Adblocking is the hammer that thinks everything is a nail

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#395

Post by dkersten » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:23 PM UTC

grkvlt wrote: post #386

dkersten wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anywhere in my post that if I see an advert, the product is instantly blacklisted -- only that it counts as a negative. So, if I had to choose between two otherwise equal products, I would choose the one with the least (or least annoying/intrusive) advertisement. I also perhaps should have said web adverts. I don't much pay attention to TV/radio/magazine/newspaper/billboard adverts, so I imagine I buy ma…

OK, I understand your point, if it's restricted to web adverts. But even then, I don't think the mere presence of an advert would ever be enough to stop me buying a product I otherwise wanted. I guess it's all just part of your own personal code of conduct/behaviour, everyone is different...

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting anybody else follow this, I was merely adding my own little anecdote.

Its just a signal though and probably a weaker one than I like to think, but in general, the spammy scummy misleading or annoying adverts are the ones that stick in my mind and then I make a mental note not to buy those things.

Most of my online shopping is "I want X, so I'll check the usual online stores that sell X". If I see adverts for these things, I always feel a bit like they're trying to influence me (because they are!) or mislead me (because _some_ are) and I feel like its not in my interest to buy what the adverts tell me. Of course, that doesn't mean I won't buy it, if I determine its really the best X, but I'll consider other stuff first.

Similarly, I consciously don't click on sponsored links and other such things, if I notice that this is what they are, because I feel like they're trying to trick me into visiting them because they make money from it, not because its a benefit to me.

(my offline shopping is mostly groceries, most clothes and other household things. For these I just browse my local shops and buy what I like -- no outside-of-store advertising plays a part here and in-store advertisement I typically ignore).

But.. yeah, to each their own :)

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#396

Post by ancap » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:40 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #380

thecrazyone wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? If they don't drive sales, they'll stop advertising or go out of business. Not sure what's your concern here

Marketing is a 12 figure industry and billions are spent with little accountability and incentives that drive bad intrusive ads that break privacy and extract data at all costs. That's my concern, as stated in my original comment describing why this situation exists and why companies working on purely technical anti-fraud measures will accomplish much of nothing.

> Marketing is a 12 figure industry and billions are spent with little accountability

Isn't it wonderful that they could improve the human standard of living to the measurement of billions of dollars? Everyone who makes a profit in a free market system did so by improving the lives of their fellow human beings, else no exchange would ever take place.

But I really don't get the "little accountability" comment. Accountable to who?

> incentives that drive bad intrusive ads that break privacy and extract data at all costs.

This is where things get hairy. In historical times privacy is only a secondary right which stems from one's primary right to property. Nowadays, people are erroneously trying to elevate privacy to be viewed as a primary right and that has very dangerous implications which undermine the primary right of property. (I believe many of the advocates know this and are purposefully using privacy as a means to undermined property rights).

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#397

Post by manigandham » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #396

manigandham wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marketing is a 12 figure industry and billions are spent with little accountability and incentives that drive bad intrusive ads that break privacy and extract data at all costs. That's my concern, as stated in my original comment describing why this situation exists and why companies working on purely technical anti-fraud measures will accomplish much of nothing.

> Marketing is a 12 figure industry and billions are spent with little accountability Isn't it wonderful that they could improve the human standard of living to the measurement of billions of dollars? Everyone who makes a profit in a free market system did so by improving the lives of their fellow human beings, else no exchange would ever take place. But I really don't get the "little accountability" comment. Account…

What are you even talking about? Yes privacy today is and should be a primary right. We are no longer in "historical times" and privacy is implied in the 4th amendment as well as integral to many recent laws. This is also far away from what this post and thread is discussing:

Programmatic digital advertising today is full of fraud and terrible ad experiences because buyers of such advertising and the entire supply chain is too complex, has no direct accountability to sales or business results, is incentivized by localized myopic metrics and lacks any governmental regulation or consequences at all.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#398

Post by vanderZwan » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

thecrazyone wrote: post #339

vanderZwan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my perspective, I've found various things via advertising that I would have never come across by other means. If you want to make a fair comparison, that should be compared to all the things you didn't find because useless ads took up your time and mental space. Also, whether or not you found something through an ad is not the point; one isn't not going to convince a smoker to quit smoking by trying to convinc…

Advertising is not a public service. You don't need to weight benefits of it for it to exist. This might seem harsh, but no one is weighing the benefits of your existence to decide whether you live or die. You own yourself and you can sustain yourself hence you exist. Similarly, advertisers exist because they can sustain themselves, they are not coercing you into viewing / using content laden with ads. You're volunta…

> Advertising is not a public service. You don't need to weight benefits of it for it to exist.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Plenty of things that are not public services are regulated or even forbidden. In fact, most of the things that are regulated or forbidden are, and the decision to do so is always based on "weighing benefits/downsides of it."

> This might seem harsh, but no one is weighing the benefits of your existence to decide whether you live or die.

Actually, yes we do, it's called criminal law. It is used to lock up (or in some barbaric nations, end the lives of) people whose "benefits of existing" within society have been found wanting. For humans we just happen default to assuming innocents until proven otherwise.

And whether or not something can exist on its own has no connection to whether or not it should, except in regards to how hard it is to get rid of.

> You're voluntarily consuming content which has ads. If you don't like it don't use ad-laden products

No, I'm not. The society that exists around me as a whole is not my choice, at best I can poke and prod at it and hope if enough people push into the same direction something changes. Until alternate payment systems like Patreon came along there simply was no way of being both a full member of said society without being confronted (or actively blocking) ads.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#399

Post by fauigerzigerk » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #393

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions? Because the rights and protections under the law that advertisers rely on only exist because of my opinion and the opinion of other citizens. Without the law, the concept of private property would be largely undefined. Corporations would not exist. There would be no limited liability, no chapter 11, no enforceable contracts, no trademarks, no…

> If we want to enjoy the protection that the rule of law affords us, we will have to accept that there needs to be some sort of social process that determines what our laws should be. It's a negotiation. I have seen this sentiment a lot on HN as a counter to libertarian arguments, but really it's a straw man. The argument you are making is essentially: as a society we make rules, therefore we can enact rule x. Where…

>The argument you are making is essentially: as a society we make rules, therefore we can enact rule x.

No, I was responding to this very general question by thecrazyone: "Why should anyone be restricted in their actions because of your opinions?".

I was interpreting this question in the sense in which libertarians are often framing it: "What gives society the right to get involved in voluntary agreements between individuals?"

So I was merely explaining my reasoning on why society has a legitimate role to play and why my opinion as a citizen counts for something.

Once that is out of the way, we can go on arguing about what specific rules are good or bad.

And on that point I have one key disagreement with some libertarians. I do not accept the absolute priority of private property over all other interests and freedoms that people value.

I find this primacy extremely contradictory given that there can never be a level playing field and libertarians keep arguing against levelling the playing field where that would be possible to some degree (inheritance tax)

I also question whether private property is sufficiently well defined or definable without taking into account other considerations of what it means to be human.

>Just because person A depends upon the services of person B doesn't mean that person A can make outlandish demands on the way person B provides said services.

I don't know what outlandish demands you are talking about.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#400

Post by Symen » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 4:07 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #378

Symen wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If for some reason I am not able to block them then I just do not watch them and I am not listening to them (I look elsewhere, say a lalala mantra in your mind). I've started using a similar strategy on YouTube in order to selectively "protest" against bad ads. Whenever I stumble upon a long unskippable ad or a short very aggressive ad (loud and/or offensive), I mute the video and start reading comments for a while…

Google already pause ad play if you change app/tab focus; my perception is (on Android?) this is a recent change. So you have to have the video ad playing to get to the point when you can skip it. So, like you I turn away - it's really annoying, but that just makes it more attention grabbing.

You are right, this does not work as well on mobile (at least on android). There is also no mute button on the YouTube app.

The funny thing is that they also pause videos when changing app/tab (not only ads), because background playback is a YouTube RED "feature". I would understand if YouTube RED was available in more than 5 countries. They have been artificially depriving their users of a basic feature for years and for nothing.

In the meantime I simply avoid watching long YouTube videos on my phone, and use NewPipe to listen to podcasts hosted on youtube (which means no ad revenue...).