4 ms·

Have to disagree with the article. The author claims "Back when targeted ads didn’t follow me around the internet, I still somehow found what I wanted to buy."

by xtreme 8y ago

Have to disagree with the article. The author claims "Back when targeted ads didn’t follow me around the internet, I still somehow found what I wanted to buy." What's different about the job market or the housing market, the two examples the author used to claim targeted ads are so terrible? IMHO I'd rather see ads that are customized for me, because the probability that I'd find them useful is much higher than some random ad. Of course some people are going to disagree with that, but that is not a strong justification to ban all targeted ads.

ivanhoe 8y ago
Totally agree, the least of my problems with the tracking are ads - they're boring, but mostly harmless. All the other analytics that can be extrapolated from the same data records are far more scary to me: political views, health issues, sexual interests, business and personal relations and all the other confidential info hidden in a plain sight within our meta data.
evolighting 8y ago
I can't agree with you; What you are taking about is exactly what the "Targeted Advertising" sellers tell you; When back into real world, do these "Targeted Advertising" really help you? Or you really trust the ad, just because they are what you are looking for? If you are looking for something, you will do research for the thing, not for the ad. ADs are annoying not because they are irrelevant, it is because they are disturbing.
nnq 8y ago
NO. Your attention span is limited, if it gets saturated with "things I'm likely to buy" or "things I need", then I'm not going to see: (1) new and interesting things that could really open new possibilities (even if 90% of them are irrelevant) (2) things that might actually be a better deal for me, but that would otherwise not be targeted to me because the targeting algorithm might've guessed "this guy can afford better version Z, why suggest him cheaper version B instead" It's just as annoying as shop assistants that come to you with those ultra-annoying "how may I help you", "what are you looking for exactly" or "are you interested in X, Y or Z type products". And all I want to do at that point is squash their heads into minced meat with a baseball bat because I'm just fucking browsing to discover new things... If knew exactly what I wanted, I would have ordered it online and it would be at my door already! If I wanted advice I would have either done "serious" research going through reviews from multiple less biased sources, or just asked some friends around. Targeted adds are like having the creepy shop assistant following you around everywhere instead of discovering new things you would've never thought of and instead of finding better deals that would've never been pushed to you and being bullied with information instead of actually taking your time to make research before your attention budget and capacity for critical thinking gets fully spent and not having to actually interact with people and get some authentic mouth-to-ear feedback from friends with "skin in the game" (people actually motivated to have you enjoy and benefit long term from your purchase). I want businesses not trying to rob me of my limited attention span and limited ability to do critical thinking based selection. I don't really want what I "need". Fuck "what I need". I want what I (me, myself, just me, not someone trying to instill a message into my head) want. Pseudo-random, unoptimized, unfiltered and mostly useless information helps me keep being crazily and uniquely me.
- chimprich 8y ago
  I think both your viewpoint and the one you replied to are reasonable. One way to keep you both happy would be to make targeted advertising opt-in or -outable. This would be my preference.
michaelt 8y ago
I don't think the argument here is that the primary aim of ads is undesirable - nobody particularly benefits from seeing or showing people irrelevant ads - but rather that the side-effects are destructive enough that a ban is justified. Consider an analogy: Asbestos is some of the best fireproofing you can get; corporations and customers alike benefit from buildings with effective fireproofing; and it's perfectly safe as long as you don't disturb it or inhale the dust. But nobody uses it any more, and its use is banned in many countries, because it causes cancer. Sadly, we can't get the asbestos of targeted adverts without the cancer of multinationals incentivised to track our every move online.
- lmm 8y ago
  > Sadly, we can't get the asbestos of targeted adverts without the cancer of multinationals incentivised to track our every move online. The problem with cancer is that it kills people. No one's ever managed to convincingly articulate what it is that's so bad about "multinationals incentivised to track our every move online".
w0utert 8y ago
This is going from the assumption that ad companies target ads based the potential value they create for you. The only goal of any targeted ad is to persuade you to voluntarily transfer your money to the company that paid for the ad. The only relevant metric to determine the usefulness of the ad is how much value it creates for them. I think you have to be pretty naive not to see that the incentives that determine which ads you will and will not see have nothing to do with your best interests.
hrktb 8y ago
> IMHO I'd rather see ads that are customized for me, because the probability that I'd find them useful is much higher than some random ad. I think there is something inherently harmful about getting relevant and useful ads. Let's say ads are even useful in the first place, getting targeted ads is akin to having a stalker changing the shops as you walk down the street. Living in a world where you'll only see stuff associated with you would have such a filter bubble effect I would effect ill side effects on a societal level that advertised won't care a bit about.

by xtreme 8y ago

ivanhoe 8y ago

Totally agree, the least of my problems with the tracking are ads - they're boring, but mostly harmless. All the other analytics that can be extrapolated from the same data records are far more scary to me: political views, health issues, sexual interests, business and personal relations and all the other confidential info hidden in a plain sight within our meta data.

evolighting 8y ago

I can't agree with you; What you are taking about is exactly what the "Targeted Advertising" sellers tell you; When back into real world, do these "Targeted Advertising" really help you? Or you really trust the ad, just because they are what you are looking for? If you are looking for something, you will do research for the thing, not for the ad. ADs are annoying not because they are irrelevant, it is because they are disturbing.

nnq 8y ago

NO. Your attention span is limited, if it gets saturated with "things I'm likely to buy" or "things I need", then I'm not going to see: (1) new and interesting things that could really open new possibilities (even if 90% of them are irrelevant) (2) things that might actually be a better deal for me, but that would otherwise not be targeted to me because the targeting algorithm might've guessed "this guy can afford better version Z, why suggest him cheaper version B instead" It's just as annoying as shop assistants that come to you with those ultra-annoying "how may I help you", "what are you looking for exactly" or "are you interested in X, Y or Z type products". And all I want to do at that point is squash their heads into minced meat with a baseball bat because I'm just fucking browsing to discover new things... If knew exactly what I wanted, I would have ordered it online and it would be at my door already! If I wanted advice I would have either done "serious" research going through reviews from multiple less biased sources, or just asked some friends around. Targeted adds are like having the creepy shop assistant following you around everywhere instead of discovering new things you would've never thought of and instead of finding better deals that would've never been pushed to you and being bullied with information instead of actually taking your time to make research before your attention budget and capacity for critical thinking gets fully spent and not having to actually interact with people and get some authentic mouth-to-ear feedback from friends with "skin in the game" (people actually motivated to have you enjoy and benefit long term from your purchase). I want businesses not trying to rob me of my limited attention span and limited ability to do critical thinking based selection. I don't really want what I "need". Fuck "what I need". I want what I (me, myself, just me, not someone trying to instill a message into my head) want. Pseudo-random, unoptimized, unfiltered and mostly useless information helps me keep being crazily and uniquely me.

chimprich 8y ago
I think both your viewpoint and the one you replied to are reasonable. One way to keep you both happy would be to make targeted advertising opt-in or -outable. This would be my preference.

michaelt 8y ago

I don't think the argument here is that the primary aim of ads is undesirable - nobody particularly benefits from seeing or showing people irrelevant ads - but rather that the side-effects are destructive enough that a ban is justified. Consider an analogy: Asbestos is some of the best fireproofing you can get; corporations and customers alike benefit from buildings with effective fireproofing; and it's perfectly safe as long as you don't disturb it or inhale the dust. But nobody uses it any more, and its use is banned in many countries, because it causes cancer. Sadly, we can't get the asbestos of targeted adverts without the cancer of multinationals incentivised to track our every move online.

lmm 8y ago
> Sadly, we can't get the asbestos of targeted adverts without the cancer of multinationals incentivised to track our every move online. The problem with cancer is that it kills people. No one's ever managed to convincingly articulate what it is that's so bad about "multinationals incentivised to track our every move online".

w0utert 8y ago

This is going from the assumption that ad companies target ads based the potential value they create for you. The only goal of any targeted ad is to persuade you to voluntarily transfer your money to the company that paid for the ad. The only relevant metric to determine the usefulness of the ad is how much value it creates for them. I think you have to be pretty naive not to see that the incentives that determine which ads you will and will not see have nothing to do with your best interests.

hrktb 8y ago

> IMHO I'd rather see ads that are customized for me, because the probability that I'd find them useful is much higher than some random ad. I think there is something inherently harmful about getting relevant and useful ads. Let's say ads are even useful in the first place, getting targeted ads is akin to having a stalker changing the shops as you walk down the street. Living in a world where you'll only see stuff associated with you would have such a filter bubble effect I would effect ill side effects on a societal level that advertised won't care a bit about.