5 ms·

What's wrong with showing me relevant ads?

by patrickaljord 10y ago

kavi87 10y ago
That's dangerous thinking, you know it.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  Why isn't it in my interest to be shown ads that offer me goods and services of my interests?
  - clap 10y ago
    Because ads are evil. They are bedrock of all worldwide bullshit and scam. They make seller don’t care about reputation, competitors and eventually product quality. They transfer products completion into ads competition. They make all products more expensive because of this “advertising tax”. They turn off customer’s head to make a zombie who buys best advertised product instead of one with the best quality. They are good only for advertising companies and scammers.
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      Ads are a great way to make your product known. Have you ever ran a business? At some point if you want to participate in the market of voluntary exchange of good, services and ideas, you need to advertize. The only countries where ads are forbidden and nowhere to be found are North Korea and before that USSR. Very depressing places. I love seeing people expressing themselves and showing up what they've built and trying to sell it. What's wrong with that? Advertizing oneself is one of the most human treat we have and has always existed one way or the other.
      - clap 10y ago
        Yes, I’m talking this from my business experience. I’m selling software. It was cracked and thief is easily selling it with adwords now. He has top ad’s position in Google (despite several dmca notices and not only from me) and Google doesn’t care about it as long as they get good money from thief. Google must share responsibility with the scammers for false advertising and the customers and sellers should have a way to make Google pay for promoting scam. The ads cost should be proportional to the possible damage.
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    I'm amazed that isn't obvious to you, they are there to influence your buying habits in the interest of the advertiser.
- piyush_soni 10y ago
  And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Fast-forwarding through ads has been an extremely popular feature for VCRs.
  - sdiepend 10y ago
    The precision with which it can be done.
  - xg15 10y ago
    And if at some point, the industry shifts to direct brain-stimulation to influence behavior, someone will say "how is that different from targeted advertising? People seemed to have no problem with that..." How exactly would you expect that "having a problem with it" manifests? By not watching TV and not reading any kind of newspaper?
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    First off: tu quoque. You're changing the argument, which I'll take to mean you've conceeded the point. But since you ask, it's very much the same, and people have very much had a problem with that, which raises a second fault with your argument: false premise. Noam Chomsky. Pretty much his life's work. Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. (NB: Mander is a former ad executive himself). Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher himself, wrote of the fundamental problem in 1909, Commercialism and Journalism. https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft I.F. Stone spoke of the problem in 1974 on "Day at Night". The video is now on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g Robert R. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" criticised generally the television industry, in the 1950s. http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_li... A couple of Stanford researchers in the 1990s recognised the corrosive effects of advertising on incentives in the provision of online services. The prior awareness didn't save them from faling into the same pit: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html Niel Postman. Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves to Death. Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, Merchants of Doubt looks at influencing on a much broader basis. Banksy's art is, in many regards, a direct refutation of advertising. The letter attributed to him on the topic is originally by someone else however. It remains exceedingly good reading: http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/ http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/ There's a large literature on the subject. Generally, psychological aspects of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychological+aspects.&qt=hot_subject http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychologi... Criticisms of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=criticisms%20of%20advertising http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=critici... At Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising
- eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
  There is an option somewhere in Google settings to turn off personalized ads.
  - Filligree 10y ago
    Which makes the ads much poorer. You'd need a particular philosophy to want to check that box; most people, I think, would use a blocker.
- oblio 10y ago
  Only (mostly?) if you don't know that they're trying to.
stephenr 10y ago
The problem is the method of building the "profile" that determines what's "relevant" for you.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  What's wrong with them building a profile of me as long as I consented to it? Are you opposed to consenting agreements between willing adults and companies?
  - quickben 10y ago
    Because, in 5 , 10, or 200 years. When societies (or rules) change, it will be used to discriminate or worse. "Whoever doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it.'
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      Well, if we have people willing to kill us based on the type of socks we like or porn we enjoy, we have a bigger problem than the fact that this information is being collected. It's not like people willing to kill for such ridiculous reasons would be stopped by the lack of available data. Crazies don't really care about fact and data in general. I think you're assuming a bit too much about them. Obligatory xkcd about it https://xkcd.com/792/ https://xkcd.com/792/
  - stephenr 10y ago
    Well besides the creepy factor of what this data could be used for, the average user doesn't "consent" to it, because they have no idea it happens.
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      Then in this case the problem seems to be ignorance. Ignorant people will always find themselves in trouble though. Anyway, you still haven't proved that they wouldn't be ok with this even if aware of it. I've talked to many people about this and most were ok with it. I think you're assuming a lot here about what others care about. It seems like you have a problem with people consenting to things you don't like, just like homophobes have problems with gays because they personally don't like consenting to same sex intercourse and think gays are ignorant of some facts (they're going to hell etc), maybe people don't care or believe in these facts and are just enjoying themselves, ever thought of that? What's the problems if other people enjoy things you don't? Live and let live.

What's wrong with showing me relevant ads?

kavi87 10y ago

That's dangerous thinking, you know it.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

It modifies your behaviour in ways that aren't in your interest.

patrickaljord 10y ago
Why isn't it in my interest to be shown ads that offer me goods and services of my interests?
- clap 10y ago
  Because ads are evil. They are bedrock of all worldwide bullshit and scam. They make seller don’t care about reputation, competitors and eventually product quality. They transfer products completion into ads competition. They make all products more expensive because of this “advertising tax”. They turn off customer’s head to make a zombie who buys best advertised product instead of one with the best quality. They are good only for advertising companies and scammers.
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    Ads are a great way to make your product known. Have you ever ran a business? At some point if you want to participate in the market of voluntary exchange of good, services and ideas, you need to advertize. The only countries where ads are forbidden and nowhere to be found are North Korea and before that USSR. Very depressing places. I love seeing people expressing themselves and showing up what they've built and trying to sell it. What's wrong with that? Advertizing oneself is one of the most human treat we have and has always existed one way or the other.
    - clap 10y ago
      Yes, I’m talking this from my business experience. I’m selling software. It was cracked and thief is easily selling it with adwords now. He has top ad’s position in Google (despite several dmca notices and not only from me) and Google doesn’t care about it as long as they get good money from thief. Google must share responsibility with the scammers for false advertising and the customers and sellers should have a way to make Google pay for promoting scam. The ads cost should be proportional to the possible damage.
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I'm amazed that isn't obvious to you, they are there to influence your buying habits in the interest of the advertiser.
piyush_soni 10y ago
And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Fast-forwarding through ads has been an extremely popular feature for VCRs.
- sdiepend 10y ago
  The precision with which it can be done.
- xg15 10y ago
  And if at some point, the industry shifts to direct brain-stimulation to influence behavior, someone will say "how is that different from targeted advertising? People seemed to have no problem with that..." How exactly would you expect that "having a problem with it" manifests? By not watching TV and not reading any kind of newspaper?
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  First off: tu quoque. You're changing the argument, which I'll take to mean you've conceeded the point. But since you ask, it's very much the same, and people have very much had a problem with that, which raises a second fault with your argument: false premise. Noam Chomsky. Pretty much his life's work. Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. (NB: Mander is a former ad executive himself). Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher himself, wrote of the fundamental problem in 1909, Commercialism and Journalism. https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft I.F. Stone spoke of the problem in 1974 on "Day at Night". The video is now on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g Robert R. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" criticised generally the television industry, in the 1950s. http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_lights_in_a_box_speech http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_li... A couple of Stanford researchers in the 1990s recognised the corrosive effects of advertising on incentives in the provision of online services. The prior awareness didn't save them from faling into the same pit: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html Niel Postman. Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves to Death. Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, Merchants of Doubt looks at influencing on a much broader basis. Banksy's art is, in many regards, a direct refutation of advertising. The letter attributed to him on the topic is originally by someone else however. It remains exceedingly good reading: http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/ http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/ There's a large literature on the subject. Generally, psychological aspects of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychological+aspects.&qt=hot_subject http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychologi... Criticisms of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=criticisms%20of%20advertising http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=critici... At Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising
eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
There is an option somewhere in Google settings to turn off personalized ads.
- Filligree 10y ago
  Which makes the ads much poorer. You'd need a particular philosophy to want to check that box; most people, I think, would use a blocker.
oblio 10y ago
Only (mostly?) if you don't know that they're trying to.

stephenr 10y ago

The problem is the method of building the "profile" that determines what's "relevant" for you.

patrickaljord 10y ago
What's wrong with them building a profile of me as long as I consented to it? Are you opposed to consenting agreements between willing adults and companies?
- quickben 10y ago
  Because, in 5 , 10, or 200 years. When societies (or rules) change, it will be used to discriminate or worse. "Whoever doesn't study history is doomed to repeat it.'
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    Well, if we have people willing to kill us based on the type of socks we like or porn we enjoy, we have a bigger problem than the fact that this information is being collected. It's not like people willing to kill for such ridiculous reasons would be stopped by the lack of available data. Crazies don't really care about fact and data in general. I think you're assuming a bit too much about them. Obligatory xkcd about it https://xkcd.com/792/ https://xkcd.com/792/
- stephenr 10y ago
  Well besides the creepy factor of what this data could be used for, the average user doesn't "consent" to it, because they have no idea it happens.
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    Then in this case the problem seems to be ignorance. Ignorant people will always find themselves in trouble though. Anyway, you still haven't proved that they wouldn't be ok with this even if aware of it. I've talked to many people about this and most were ok with it. I think you're assuming a lot here about what others care about. It seems like you have a problem with people consenting to things you don't like, just like homophobes have problems with gays because they personally don't like consenting to same sex intercourse and think gays are ignorant of some facts (they're going to hell etc), maybe people don't care or believe in these facts and are just enjoying themselves, ever thought of that? What's the problems if other people enjoy things you don't? Live and let live.