3 ms·
> It seems that nobody ever considers the other side, which would be that people are now targeted with ads that they want to see instead of poorly targeted ads
by koolba 8y ago
> It seems that nobody ever considers the other side, which would be that people are now targeted with ads that they want to see instead of poorly targeted ads that just waste their time.
That’s a tall drink of kool aid.
Nobody wants to see targeted ads that will get them to spend more money than random ads. That’s a basic corollary of nobody wanting to spend more money in general.
Caring about advertising “working” to support businesses is like caring about blacksmiths losing horseshoe replacement work when automobiles arrived.
- thisacctforreal 8y agoI'm as anti-tracking as anyone, but people generally only open their wallets for things they view as a fair deal, barring extortion.
- ionised 8y agoHow can you possibly prove this? The observations I have made tell me that for some stuff people will buy because it's a good deal (usually non-essential luxury stuff) but for things they actually need in their day-to-day, they pay extortionate prices because there are simply few or zero options.
- dkrich 8y agoThis is just pure nonsense. I don't doubt you believe it, but Facebook's earnings/advertiser's spend coupled with demonstrated user behavior very quickly put your logic to rest. The statement that nobody wants to see ads that would cause them to spend more money sounds more like a personal preference (and one that I would strongly question in the real world) than an objective fact about society at large.
- ionised 8y ago> Facebook's earnings/advertiser's spend coupled with demonstrated user behavior very quickly put your logic to rest I don't follow your leap of logic. I could just as easily say those earnings reports proof how effective psychological warfare is at exploiting the weakness and insecurities of humans in order to part them from the fruits of their labour.