3 ms·
It does both. I'm going to see ads no matter what, if I'm not paying. Seeing ads that might be occasionally relevant to me is better an the prior status quo of
by repolfx 8y ago
It does both. I'm going to see ads no matter what, if I'm not paying. Seeing ads that might be occasionally relevant to me is better an the prior status quo of seeing seizure-inducing punch the monkey ads. These days I mostly see ads for programmer tools: I'm a happier web user as a result.
This idea that ad targeting is some kind of shady evil is a very recent one and, as far as I can tell, artificially created by the press as part of a proxy fight against Google and Facebook as disintermediators. It doesn't seem based on anything real.
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago> This idea that ad targeting is some kind of shady evil is a very recent one and, as far as I can tell, artificially created by the press as part of a proxy fight against Google and Facebook as disintermediators. It doesn't seem based on anything real. Just to be clear, are you saying that the claim that google and facebook have vast amounts of information about you doesn't seem based on anything real?
- repolfx 8y agoYou're not arguing with what I said. I argued that ad targeting is not evil or shady. But to answer the argument you put in my mouth, I have accounts on both services and use them plenty, so yes, these firms have plenty of data created by me and about me. But if I didn't, they'd just have a few anonymous ad profiles linked to random cookie IDs. I've seen such profiles. That's not very much.
- fwdpropaganda 8y agoOk I understand. Well, I would argue that it might not be "evil" but it definitely is "shady". But I suspect that from here this conversation would go into the definitions of words, so there's really no point.