9 ms·

"Our work refutes the belief that the battle between publishers and users is leading to a permanent arms race between the two parties, and presents a much more

by d33 9y ago

"Our work refutes the belief that the battle between publishers and users is leading to a permanent arms race between the two parties, and presents a much more nuanced picture." "There is a significant need for follow-on technical work into the expansion of techniques that we have introduced as well as a debate on the ethics of ad blocking." Is there really a need for debase on the ethics of ad blocking at all? How could you defend presenting ads as being ethical at all? Do they really provide any value to our lives? I keep seeing it just as a waste of human attention and wondering what humanity would be like if we rejected the concept of spamming us with advertisements via every possible channel. Is it just me or we should stop accepting them and start working on building society where this is not accepted or at the very least, greatly excised?

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Well, ads currently are used to monetize part of your attention to pay for providing the service you're trying to use. If the ads all went away, so too might the service. So there is a debate if there's another viable economy (or even a better economy) than the ad-attention one. I personally am against ads because the way they operate now fundamentally damages the workings of capitalism as a resource allocation tool. There's a debate about the economics of ads, which sometimes takes on ethical dimensions.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- literallycancer 9y ago
  >Well, ads currently are used to monetize part of your attention to pay for providing the service you're trying to use. If the ads all went away, so too might the service. Yes. What's the issue?
hvs 9y ago
Do you feel this way about television?
- nerdponx 9y ago
  Ads are the only reason I don't want to pay for TV. It's just not worth watching.
libertine 9y ago
From the moment that some ad sets you in contact with a product/service or a brand that brings value to you, it will become valuable to your life - on that particular moment. Else how would you reach out to your possible customers, that would find your product/service of great value to them? Do not fool yourself by saying that advertisement doesn't work... it does, and I bet it has influenced your decision plenty of times in your life - and I mean this in a positive way, not in a "mind controlling" way. The problem of spamming is just a matter of cheap distribution, a lot of inventory and the need to monetize free content.
- csydas 9y ago
  Aside from a small outspoken few, I don't think that anyone is really arguing that advertising doesn't work. That's never been the contention, and the goal isn't to be completely rid of advertisements. The argument has been the annoyingness and frustrating way in which advertisements present themselves and constantly worm their way into your private life without your permission. It's advertising rings with exceptionally poor vetting allowing malicious ads through, no scrutiny applied. It's advertisers ignoring the expressed wishes of individuals who set Do Not Track, or installing adblockers; I will concede the latter often isn't much about philosophy and choice as it is about annoyance, but the site has the ability and choice to not provide content in that case - the sites and advertisers work to circumvent it. The problem with the idea of discussing advertisements in a sound way is that it's always been a discussion in bad faith on the side of advertisers. Think of every time there has been a major privacy breaking advertising and data collection tactic - the only reason these times stopped was because they got caught, not because someone inside thought "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy." Look at the recent issues with Android based phones listening for silent beacons without user permission; a 40 page TOS on a phone does not constitute a fair warning, and courts have repeatedly upheld this position. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" advertisers, but it's a poisoned landscape. The advertisements you see going to the majority of the web aren't from these good advertisers, and websites aren't interested in it either. There's money and incentive in crappy advertising and invading people's privacy. It's not "bringing value to customers", it's bringing value to advertisers and data hoarders while paying out a little to services, and these services are happy enough to lie to you about adblockers. Look at this pop-up from Bloomberg of all places: [1] It's a flat-out lie as to why they want you to unblock ads; the page renders perfectly fine and is perfectly reasonable without it, they just want you to see ads. It's not about creating value, it's about getting eyes on ads. Doesn't matter how, why, or what in many cases, just eyes and ears in contact with ads. Advertisers have dug a huge hole for themselves, and they're just digging deeper every time there is another upset over something advertisers do - they issue a stock apology, then do it all over again with a slightly different method. It's absurd, and the idea that somehow we need to meet advertisers half-way is equally absurd. There has not been a show of good faith from the advertising realm, even in the face of government regulation. It's complete disregard for everything in the name of a few bucks and more eyes and ears in contact with whoever happens to pay enough to get an ad there. Even with the hoards of data that they mine about people, you still get ridiculous advertisement patterns along the lines of "I see you just bought a washing machine. Here are washing machines you might want to buy!" There's no sense or reason, it's not advertising as a service, it's just spewing non-sense out there, and the amount of infrastructure, time, technology, and brainpower used to spew it out there is absolutely mind-boggling. [1] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWTmRNw.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWT... Edit: Fixed a sentence where I forgot words: "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy."
Denzel 9y ago
I feel differently. [1] And that's exactly why a debate is logical. One useful thing you can do to enter the debate... define what you believe an ad is and why. Oh and remember, when you're driving past those big ol' strip mall signs... you're looking at a physical advertisement of location. Maybe your definition differs, maybe it doesn't. Maybe you have a sound, logical argument for why it's different, or maybe you don't. A debate is a good faith effort in trying to understand another's viewpoint while arguing your own. And I understand your viewpoint, I hate what some ads have become, and yet I still don't use an ad-blocker because of my own personal values. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964498
- vespa_1933 9y ago
  Do you feel differently because you work for an org that makes money from selling ads? Not trying to be obnoxious but wouldn't it be simple for us to understand a pro-advertising position from such a person as no more complex as 'this is how I make my living'? How much of our society's brainpower should be allocated to gaming the internet for ad-clicks? That would be the real debate. Many brilliant technologists are being hijacked by the major ad-media corporations for what I think we can all agree is a trivial (if not pointless) task. This is what we should be debating.
  - Denzel 9y ago
    I can't take your ad-hominem attack on good faith.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      That may be an ad-hominem attack, but it's a justified one for once. Affiliations are a very relevant part to a moral discussion, so much that it has become commonplace for people to disclose their affiliations when they're engaging in moral discussions. Something that I haven't you seen doing yet, by the way.
      - Denzel 9y ago
cgmg 9y ago
How do you propose free services maintain themselves?
- marssaxman 9y ago
  Collective volunteer labor worked fine before ads came along. Content was better, too.
  - chii 9y ago
    > volunteer this does not last, and is unlikely to scale beyond a certain point. Look how much trouble wikipedia is having with finances - so much so that they are spamming pages with donation pleas. I'm not saying that advertising is inevitable, but when value extraction from the consumer is low (such as a shitty site that people won't pay for, but will consume if free), advertising is the only viable way. If the argument is that such sites don't deserve to exist, then the arguments from both sides are just arguing different world views, and will not ever be resolved.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Arguably making it financially viable for the poor to use online services is a key upside to the ad industry. Probably the only one. I mean, as it is they have to figure out a way to get access but when they have it, the wealth of resources they can get without additional expense is huge. As a middle class individual, I'd prefer to pay for privacy which is why I opted to get FastMail. But for plenty of people in the world, that simply isn't a viable option.

by d33 9y ago

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

Well, ads currently are used to monetize part of your attention to pay for providing the service you're trying to use. If the ads all went away, so too might the service. So there is a debate if there's another viable economy (or even a better economy) than the ad-attention one. I personally am against ads because the way they operate now fundamentally damages the workings of capitalism as a resource allocation tool. There's a debate about the economics of ads, which sometimes takes on ethical dimensions.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
literallycancer 9y ago
>Well, ads currently are used to monetize part of your attention to pay for providing the service you're trying to use. If the ads all went away, so too might the service. Yes. What's the issue?

hvs 9y ago

Do you feel this way about television?

nerdponx 9y ago
Ads are the only reason I don't want to pay for TV. It's just not worth watching.

libertine 9y ago

From the moment that some ad sets you in contact with a product/service or a brand that brings value to you, it will become valuable to your life - on that particular moment. Else how would you reach out to your possible customers, that would find your product/service of great value to them? Do not fool yourself by saying that advertisement doesn't work... it does, and I bet it has influenced your decision plenty of times in your life - and I mean this in a positive way, not in a "mind controlling" way. The problem of spamming is just a matter of cheap distribution, a lot of inventory and the need to monetize free content.

csydas 9y ago
Aside from a small outspoken few, I don't think that anyone is really arguing that advertising doesn't work. That's never been the contention, and the goal isn't to be completely rid of advertisements. The argument has been the annoyingness and frustrating way in which advertisements present themselves and constantly worm their way into your private life without your permission. It's advertising rings with exceptionally poor vetting allowing malicious ads through, no scrutiny applied. It's advertisers ignoring the expressed wishes of individuals who set Do Not Track, or installing adblockers; I will concede the latter often isn't much about philosophy and choice as it is about annoyance, but the site has the ability and choice to not provide content in that case - the sites and advertisers work to circumvent it. The problem with the idea of discussing advertisements in a sound way is that it's always been a discussion in bad faith on the side of advertisers. Think of every time there has been a major privacy breaking advertising and data collection tactic - the only reason these times stopped was because they got caught, not because someone inside thought "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy." Look at the recent issues with Android based phones listening for silent beacons without user permission; a 40 page TOS on a phone does not constitute a fair warning, and courts have repeatedly upheld this position. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" advertisers, but it's a poisoned landscape. The advertisements you see going to the majority of the web aren't from these good advertisers, and websites aren't interested in it either. There's money and incentive in crappy advertising and invading people's privacy. It's not "bringing value to customers", it's bringing value to advertisers and data hoarders while paying out a little to services, and these services are happy enough to lie to you about adblockers. Look at this pop-up from Bloomberg of all places: [1] It's a flat-out lie as to why they want you to unblock ads; the page renders perfectly fine and is perfectly reasonable without it, they just want you to see ads. It's not about creating value, it's about getting eyes on ads. Doesn't matter how, why, or what in many cases, just eyes and ears in contact with ads. Advertisers have dug a huge hole for themselves, and they're just digging deeper every time there is another upset over something advertisers do - they issue a stock apology, then do it all over again with a slightly different method. It's absurd, and the idea that somehow we need to meet advertisers half-way is equally absurd. There has not been a show of good faith from the advertising realm, even in the face of government regulation. It's complete disregard for everything in the name of a few bucks and more eyes and ears in contact with whoever happens to pay enough to get an ad there. Even with the hoards of data that they mine about people, you still get ridiculous advertisement patterns along the lines of "I see you just bought a washing machine. Here are washing machines you might want to buy!" There's no sense or reason, it's not advertising as a service, it's just spewing non-sense out there, and the amount of infrastructure, time, technology, and brainpower used to spew it out there is absolutely mind-boggling. [1] https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWTmRNw.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*nk9KdK0VXmLi3R2JWT... Edit: Fixed a sentence where I forgot words: "huh, this might not be a good idea to make an invasion of privacy."

Denzel 9y ago

I feel differently. [1] And that's exactly why a debate is logical. One useful thing you can do to enter the debate... define what you believe an ad is and why. Oh and remember, when you're driving past those big ol' strip mall signs... you're looking at a physical advertisement of location. Maybe your definition differs, maybe it doesn't. Maybe you have a sound, logical argument for why it's different, or maybe you don't. A debate is a good faith effort in trying to understand another's viewpoint while arguing your own. And I understand your viewpoint, I hate what some ads have become, and yet I still don't use an ad-blocker because of my own personal values. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13964498

vespa_1933 9y ago
Do you feel differently because you work for an org that makes money from selling ads? Not trying to be obnoxious but wouldn't it be simple for us to understand a pro-advertising position from such a person as no more complex as 'this is how I make my living'? How much of our society's brainpower should be allocated to gaming the internet for ad-clicks? That would be the real debate. Many brilliant technologists are being hijacked by the major ad-media corporations for what I think we can all agree is a trivial (if not pointless) task. This is what we should be debating.
- Denzel 9y ago
  I can't take your ad-hominem attack on good faith.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    That may be an ad-hominem attack, but it's a justified one for once. Affiliations are a very relevant part to a moral discussion, so much that it has become commonplace for people to disclose their affiliations when they're engaging in moral discussions. Something that I haven't you seen doing yet, by the way.
    - Denzel 9y ago

cgmg 9y ago

How do you propose free services maintain themselves?

marssaxman 9y ago
Collective volunteer labor worked fine before ads came along. Content was better, too.
- chii 9y ago
  > volunteer this does not last, and is unlikely to scale beyond a certain point. Look how much trouble wikipedia is having with finances - so much so that they are spamming pages with donation pleas. I'm not saying that advertising is inevitable, but when value extraction from the consumer is low (such as a shitty site that people won't pay for, but will consume if free), advertising is the only viable way. If the argument is that such sites don't deserve to exist, then the arguments from both sides are just arguing different world views, and will not ever be resolved.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Arguably making it financially viable for the poor to use online services is a key upside to the ad industry. Probably the only one. I mean, as it is they have to figure out a way to get access but when they have it, the wealth of resources they can get without additional expense is huge. As a middle class individual, I'd prefer to pay for privacy which is why I opted to get FastMail. But for plenty of people in the world, that simply isn't a viable option.