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

FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

myhealthyapple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#51

Post by pinko »

jedberg wrote: post #22
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you pay a small amount for those ads?

Why would I pay for targeted ads? You mean because I find them useful? I assume they're more useful to the advertisers than to me. I am willing to not get paid by them since I find them useful.

I think the parent question is interesting... you say you derive value from them, so it's somewhat conspicuous and seemingly arbitrary (rather than intentional, or calculated) that you've happened upon exactly $0.00 as the value to you, rather than negative (you'd like no ads unless you're being paid to compensate for the pain, loss of privacy, etc.) or positive (because you enjoy them and derive value out of them as a discovery service)...

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#52

Post by est31 »

switch007 wrote: post #45
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine, thanks. :) The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about. In that regard, I appreciate good ads that tell me about things I would want to know about and didn't already. For example, some of the ads I get are for live shows (back in the before times). These are live shows that I enjoy going to, but would never have known about, because I don't know where to look for them…

> The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about That's cute. I've never seen an ad for a wikipedia page though. The real purpose of ads is to convince people to buy things that they otherwise might not have, so that companies can make a profit. Take the https://www.theguardian.com/ . I've got adverts for: - an electric toothbrush. I already have one. But surely the new model is b…

Not a fan of targeted ads, but which ad to show you is only half of the part. The other part is tracking conversions, aka finding out if you actually bought some item after you saw the ad.

Also, ads don't have to work for everyone. If they work for some folks, it's already profitable for the platforms. And they do work.

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#54

Post by jonas21 »

switch007 wrote: post #45
jedberg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine, thanks. :) The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about. In that regard, I appreciate good ads that tell me about things I would want to know about and didn't already. For example, some of the ads I get are for live shows (back in the before times). These are live shows that I enjoy going to, but would never have known about, because I don't know where to look for them…

> The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about That's cute. I've never seen an ad for a wikipedia page though. The real purpose of ads is to convince people to buy things that they otherwise might not have, so that companies can make a profit. Take the https://www.theguardian.com/ . I've got adverts for: - an electric toothbrush. I already have one. But surely the new model is b…

So what you're saying is that better ad targeting would improve your experience?

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#55

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Spooky23 wrote: post #28
jedberg wrote: post #10

I was recently met with a new popup in the Instagram app, asking me to allow it to track me across applications. I actually said yes, because I get great targeted ads in Instagram and Facebook. I've clicked on multiple ads and actually even made purchases of things that I didn't know about that looked interesting. But the important part is that I do it willingly. I'm glad they were forced to ask -- not everyone is ok…

Are you ok? I’ve never heard any anyone this thrilled about an ad experience in my life.

I would be just as thrilled if companies gave me ads for things I wanted to buy, as long as the ad was not stopping me for doing what I was doing at the moment.

As it is the closest I get is ads for something I looked at 20 days ago and decided not to buy.

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#56

Post by tonyedgecombe »

jedberg wrote: post #47
foolfoolz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is the weirdest take on ads i’ve ever heard. sounds like “i have too much money and enjoy when people show me new ways of spending it”

The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about. In that regard, I appreciate good ads that tell me about things I would want to know about and didn't already.

The purpose of ads is to get you to buy things you wouldn’t have otherwise. The vendors aren’t interested in you being informed, that would mean considering competitive products.

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#57

Post by bigbubba »

ponker wrote: post #36
aspyct wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"made purchases of things that I didn't know about that looked interesting" Interestingly, that's precisely the reason I hate targeted ads. They just make me buy more things I didn't otherwise need. I see your main point though, it's nice to give the choice.

jedberg likely has a lot of cash to spend on random shit, he ran Site Reliability at Netflix which pays its entry level engineers $400K.

Frivolous overconsumption is harmful to society and the environment, not just to your wallet.

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#58

Post by jonas21 »

pinko wrote: post #51
jedberg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I pay for targeted ads? You mean because I find them useful? I assume they're more useful to the advertisers than to me. I am willing to not get paid by them since I find them useful.

I think the parent question is interesting... you say you derive value from them, so it's somewhat conspicuous and seemingly arbitrary (rather than intentional, or calculated) that you've happened upon exactly $0.00 as the value to you, rather than negative (you'd like no ads unless you're being paid to compensate for the pain, loss of privacy, etc.) or positive (because you enjoy them and derive value out of them as…

Many things end up at exactly $0.00 because the transaction costs (handling payments, dealing with refunds, reporting taxes, etc.) exceed whatever value the thing has.

This is part of the reason why so many things are ad-supported to begin with -- even if someone is willing to pay $0.03 to read a random article, there's no effective way to collect that.

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#59

Post by x4j91 »

jonas21 wrote: post #54
switch007 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about That's cute. I've never seen an ad for a wikipedia page though. The real purpose of ads is to convince people to buy things that they otherwise might not have, so that companies can make a profit. Take the https://www.theguardian.com/ . I've got adverts for: - an electric toothbrush. I already have one. But surely the new model is b…

So what you're saying is that better ad targeting would improve your experience?

Better ad targeting definately can improve the user experience ... but the path to get there is insidious ...

Re: FTC commissioner met with Apple regarding Facebook’s iOS 14 complaints

#60

Post by hated »

ponker wrote: post #36
aspyct wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"made purchases of things that I didn't know about that looked interesting" Interestingly, that's precisely the reason I hate targeted ads. They just make me buy more things I didn't otherwise need. I see your main point though, it's nice to give the choice.

jedberg likely has a lot of cash to spend on random shit, he ran Site Reliability at Netflix which pays its entry level engineers $400K.

The large amount of debt ceded from society to jedberg in exchange for aiding and abetting the pollution of peoples' minds is morally reprehensible and disgusting to me
Post reply on HN