3 ms·

I'm not sure I can see how this would really help transform the ad ecosystem, even on a sustained basis. The hackers did this enrich themselves at the expense o

I'm not sure I can see how this would really help transform the ad ecosystem, even on a sustained basis. The hackers did this enrich themselves at the expense of companies wanting to advertise a product. If the victimized companies were selling low value or dubious products (a value judgement) like magical diet pills, then it might bankrupt a few of them in the short-term. Maybe those companies who lost money go back and try to sue the ad exchanges because they didn't adequately detect the click fraud, so then it's the ad companies who take the hit. In the end, what actual change do you think would be enacted by companies who wish to advertise their products being the victim of fraud?

kuschku 10y ago
> In the end, what actual change do you think would be enacted by companies who wish to advertise their products being the victim of fraud? They stop advertising through the web, and we can get rid of the ad-driven startup bubble, and get rid of most ads on the web in general.
- kelvin0 10y ago
  This. Thanks for clarifying to parent poster.
- jstandard 10y ago
  I often see the argument that we should "get rid of most ads on the web in general", but have yet to see a reasonable proposal for what replaces that in a way that works for companies wanting to reach consumers with their products. To play devil's advocate, it would be a huge loss to society if advertisements were no longer viable due to constant fraud. Information would flow a lot less freely because then content providers would be forced to switch to directly charging for their content rather than giving it to you for "free + ads" as they do currently. It wouldn't just be "low value" content dropping off, "low value" is another individual value judgement. It would become much harder to connect products and services or become harder to separate actual stories from long-form product placement. I don't find much wrong with the concept of "advertising". I do take issue with certain types of "bad" or malicious ads, but I'm also generally not receptive to most advertising. However, ads exist because they are effective at connecting users with products.
  - kelvin0 10y ago
    I agree, Ads in theory do help connect people or businesses to services and products they might need/want ... But, it becomes a race to the bottom, and it is to be expected that every business will want more eyeballs on its products and try to outdo their competitors. The collateral damage of this advertisement frenzy is with people who are bombarded and overstimulated by product placement and a relentless marketing machine. Consumers become skeptic and dulled by the efforts and advertising becomes the pain in the a it is now.
    - jstandard 10y ago
      It isn't just in theory but also in practice do ads connect people with products. Actual transactions are happening from real people clicking ads and companies are realizing real returns on marketing dollars spent. "Getting rid of most online ads" doesn't remove a business' need to connect with consumers in the most effective, lowest cost way possible. It also doesn't change a news agency's need to get paid for the content it creates. I'm not disputing that digital advertising can get out of hand. Malicious ads are bad. Ads with dark UX patterns are bad. We likely have different definitions of "bad ads". However, if it's the number of ads you're concerned about, you generally have a choice to pay to remove them to continue consuming the content you're interested in or product which you are using. I still don't see how your original comment about criminals defrauding businesses out of their money and inflating the cost/risk of advertising somehow puts everyone in a better place.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        What actual purpose do ads fulfill? Do they help you in making any decision in what to buy? No, they just mislead you, because you don't end up buying the best product, but the one that spent the most marketing dollars, meaning the product where the price is inflated the most (as, ifthey didn't pay for marketing, you could have gotten it cheaper). Instead, you should make your decisions on what to buy based on independent product tests. Such as the tests from Stiftung Warentest — subscribing to their tests is the best decision you could do, as they constantly test all types of products in comparison tests, you get the results in a nice readable matrix per category, and can directly see which is the best product for your use case. (Same with similar tests in other newspapers, comparing a hundred different types of headphones, or child seats for the car, or banana juices, etc). Advertising is harmful because it means the market is not a well-working free market anymore, as the buyers don't buy the best product anynore, but the one with the highest marketing budget.

kuschku 10y ago

> In the end, what actual change do you think would be enacted by companies who wish to advertise their products being the victim of fraud? They stop advertising through the web, and we can get rid of the ad-driven startup bubble, and get rid of most ads on the web in general.

kelvin0 10y ago
This. Thanks for clarifying to parent poster.
jstandard 10y ago
I often see the argument that we should "get rid of most ads on the web in general", but have yet to see a reasonable proposal for what replaces that in a way that works for companies wanting to reach consumers with their products. To play devil's advocate, it would be a huge loss to society if advertisements were no longer viable due to constant fraud. Information would flow a lot less freely because then content providers would be forced to switch to directly charging for their content rather than giving it to you for "free + ads" as they do currently. It wouldn't just be "low value" content dropping off, "low value" is another individual value judgement. It would become much harder to connect products and services or become harder to separate actual stories from long-form product placement. I don't find much wrong with the concept of "advertising". I do take issue with certain types of "bad" or malicious ads, but I'm also generally not receptive to most advertising. However, ads exist because they are effective at connecting users with products.
- kelvin0 10y ago
  I agree, Ads in theory do help connect people or businesses to services and products they might need/want ... But, it becomes a race to the bottom, and it is to be expected that every business will want more eyeballs on its products and try to outdo their competitors. The collateral damage of this advertisement frenzy is with people who are bombarded and overstimulated by product placement and a relentless marketing machine. Consumers become skeptic and dulled by the efforts and advertising becomes the pain in the a it is now.
  - jstandard 10y ago
    It isn't just in theory but also in practice do ads connect people with products. Actual transactions are happening from real people clicking ads and companies are realizing real returns on marketing dollars spent. "Getting rid of most online ads" doesn't remove a business' need to connect with consumers in the most effective, lowest cost way possible. It also doesn't change a news agency's need to get paid for the content it creates. I'm not disputing that digital advertising can get out of hand. Malicious ads are bad. Ads with dark UX patterns are bad. We likely have different definitions of "bad ads". However, if it's the number of ads you're concerned about, you generally have a choice to pay to remove them to continue consuming the content you're interested in or product which you are using. I still don't see how your original comment about criminals defrauding businesses out of their money and inflating the cost/risk of advertising somehow puts everyone in a better place.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      What actual purpose do ads fulfill? Do they help you in making any decision in what to buy? No, they just mislead you, because you don't end up buying the best product, but the one that spent the most marketing dollars, meaning the product where the price is inflated the most (as, ifthey didn't pay for marketing, you could have gotten it cheaper). Instead, you should make your decisions on what to buy based on independent product tests. Such as the tests from Stiftung Warentest — subscribing to their tests is the best decision you could do, as they constantly test all types of products in comparison tests, you get the results in a nice readable matrix per category, and can directly see which is the best product for your use case. (Same with similar tests in other newspapers, comparing a hundred different types of headphones, or child seats for the car, or banana juices, etc). Advertising is harmful because it means the market is not a well-working free market anymore, as the buyers don't buy the best product anynore, but the one with the highest marketing budget.