6 ms·

One thing I find annoying about their rhetoric is this rationalization that people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be i

One thing I find annoying about their rhetoric is this rationalization that people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in. People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. I'll grant that targeted advertising is better than untargeted advertising, but no advertising is still strongly preferred (I'd even pay a couple bucks a month for it). This is why tons of users use adblockers - it's just a better experience. I understand advertising is what funds Facebook and I get why they care about it, but don't also try and tell me why advertising is something the users want. Users don't want it and the experience would be better without it (and without all the tons of engineers dedicated to making it better instead of working on the core product).

blowski 10y ago
Actually some users _do_ want adverts, bizarre as that may seem to us. The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin.
- computerex 10y ago
  > The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin. Ya because everyone on the web is savy enough to use an adblocker. You're making a lot of silly assumptions.
imglorp 10y ago
It's not just a better experience, it's also safer. Less malware from three ad auctions downstream, less private information exfiltrated by third parties, etc. The flashing annoyances are the least of my worries.
seanwilson 10y ago
> People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. The opposite side of this is people that think ads are the worst things ever. I really don't understand what the big deal is. It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place. Ads being too distracting (e.g. flashing, videos) and a malware source is a different story though.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place Absolutely they do, that's their entire purpose. It has various names such as 'acquired need', a prime example that gained universal acceptance being fabric conditioner. Sugared water is another prime example, I'm sure you can name some brands and mentally picture their bottles lying in a bed of ice cubes.
  - sosborn 10y ago
    You are right that this is there intention, but it is not always the effect. Think about SPAM. Have you ever fallen for any of those emails?
    - falcolas 10y ago
      People fall for them all the time. Most of the more poorly worded ones are actually trying to filter out intelligent users, since they will end up being a waste of the spammer's time.
      - sosborn 10y ago
        Yes, some people do. That doesn't mean that everyone does, which was the point that seanwilson was making.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/3240263&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina... (Mander was himself an ad executive.) Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business/oclc/11842779&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pub... http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology/oclc/24694343&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu... Adam Curtis, The Century of the Self http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087398&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s While we're at it, A Thousand Clowns http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU
scottmf 10y ago
It's incredibly disingenuous of them to suggest they're doing users a favor. Do they not see the irony in justifying their circumvention of adblockers with the claim that users want ads? With that said, I've surprised myself by clicking a couple of Facebook ads in the past few months. Or rather, Googled the product to avoid tracking.
- sherjilozair 10y ago
  > Googled the product to avoid tracking. You sure you avoided tracking by 'Googling'?
  - scottmf 10y ago
    Ha. Maybe slightly.
st3v3r 10y ago
Most users, however, want the sites and apps they use to remain free AND not have ads.
- initram 10y ago
  What makes you think that? I hate ads and am more than happy to pay to not see them and to support things I use. I do this all the time with, for example, Netflix, iTunes, and a few others. I even pay for the NPR I listen to in my car where they can't track me or force me to subscribe or pay. I think the reality is that most users get very little value out of the web sites and apps they use and would be just as happy to not use them if they disappeared due to low ad revenue. For those that they would actually miss, some large percentage might be willing to pay for them. In fact, Hulu [1] just announced that they are no longer offering an ad-supported version. That's pretty telling. Either their service was so bad that they couldn't even give it away (doubtful given that they've kept the paid version), or users actually do hate ads and are willing to pay for content that's actually good. [1]http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/ http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/
  - fossuser 10y ago
    I don't disagree with your general point, but the paid version of Hulu had ads (and still mostly does) until recently. They have a paid version that's a few dollars more without ads, but that's relatively new and still has ads for some shows. If ad supported free content isn't great, it's at least reasonable - ad supported paid content is absolutely terrible. I think people should categorically reject ad supported paid content or we might end up with another cable tv situation.
ElComradio 10y ago
This situation highlights the elephant in the room- People are not much interested in paying for online services, even one as large as FB. Their growth and DAU would suffer dramatically if they had to charge even a nominal fee for use. People will take it for free but it is not worth enough to most to pay even a small amount.
woodandsteel 10y ago
If users wanted ads, they'd be willing to pay to get them.
quotemstr 10y ago
> people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in Sometimes they do. I bought my current wallet after seeing an FB ad for it. It's much better than my previous wallet and I'm happy with the purchase. That's how advertising is supposed to work.
- RDeckard 10y ago
  What wallet was that? :) Genuinely curious.

blowski 10y ago

Actually some users _do_ want adverts, bizarre as that may seem to us. The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin.

computerex 10y ago
> The majority of users probably don't care either way, based on the proportion of web users who use Adblock or one of its kin. Ya because everyone on the web is savy enough to use an adblocker. You're making a lot of silly assumptions.

imglorp 10y ago

It's not just a better experience, it's also safer. Less malware from three ad auctions downstream, less private information exfiltrated by third parties, etc. The flashing annoyances are the least of my worries.

seanwilson 10y ago

> People do want to learn more about what they're interested in, but I can't think of a less honest source than an advertiser. The opposite side of this is people that think ads are the worst things ever. I really don't understand what the big deal is. It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place. Ads being too distracting (e.g. flashing, videos) and a malware source is a different story though.

dingaling 10y ago
> It's not like a random ad is going to brainwash me into buying something I never wanted in the first place Absolutely they do, that's their entire purpose. It has various names such as 'acquired need', a prime example that gained universal acceptance being fabric conditioner. Sugared water is another prime example, I'm sure you can name some brands and mentally picture their bottles lying in a bed of ice cubes.
- sosborn 10y ago
  You are right that this is there intention, but it is not always the effect. Think about SPAM. Have you ever fallen for any of those emails?
  - falcolas 10y ago
    People fall for them all the time. Most of the more poorly worded ones are actually trying to filter out intelligent users, since they will end up being a waste of the spammer's time.
    - sosborn 10y ago
      Yes, some people do. That doesn't mean that everyone does, which was the point that seanwilson was making.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/3240263&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina... (Mander was himself an ad executive.) Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business/oclc/11842779&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pub... http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology/oclc/24694343&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu... Adam Curtis, The Century of the Self http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087398&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/century-of-the-self/oclc/86087... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s While we're at it, A Thousand Clowns http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/thousand-clowns/oclc/748574510... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGeq3aMQpbU

scottmf 10y ago

It's incredibly disingenuous of them to suggest they're doing users a favor. Do they not see the irony in justifying their circumvention of adblockers with the claim that users want ads? With that said, I've surprised myself by clicking a couple of Facebook ads in the past few months. Or rather, Googled the product to avoid tracking.

sherjilozair 10y ago
> Googled the product to avoid tracking. You sure you avoided tracking by 'Googling'?
- scottmf 10y ago
  Ha. Maybe slightly.

st3v3r 10y ago

Most users, however, want the sites and apps they use to remain free AND not have ads.

initram 10y ago
What makes you think that? I hate ads and am more than happy to pay to not see them and to support things I use. I do this all the time with, for example, Netflix, iTunes, and a few others. I even pay for the NPR I listen to in my car where they can't track me or force me to subscribe or pay. I think the reality is that most users get very little value out of the web sites and apps they use and would be just as happy to not use them if they disappeared due to low ad revenue. For those that they would actually miss, some large percentage might be willing to pay for them. In fact, Hulu [1] just announced that they are no longer offering an ad-supported version. That's pretty telling. Either their service was so bad that they couldn't even give it away (doubtful given that they've kept the paid version), or users actually do hate ads and are willing to pay for content that's actually good. [1]http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/ http://betanews.com/2016/08/08/end-of-free-hulu/
- fossuser 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your general point, but the paid version of Hulu had ads (and still mostly does) until recently. They have a paid version that's a few dollars more without ads, but that's relatively new and still has ads for some shows. If ad supported free content isn't great, it's at least reasonable - ad supported paid content is absolutely terrible. I think people should categorically reject ad supported paid content or we might end up with another cable tv situation.

ElComradio 10y ago

This situation highlights the elephant in the room- People are not much interested in paying for online services, even one as large as FB. Their growth and DAU would suffer dramatically if they had to charge even a nominal fee for use. People will take it for free but it is not worth enough to most to pay even a small amount.

woodandsteel 10y ago

If users wanted ads, they'd be willing to pay to get them.

quotemstr 10y ago

> people want advertising to teach them about new interests and things they might be interested in Sometimes they do. I bought my current wallet after seeing an FB ad for it. It's much better than my previous wallet and I'm happy with the purchase. That's how advertising is supposed to work.

RDeckard 10y ago
What wallet was that? :) Genuinely curious.