5 ms·

Hi -- ad industry member here -- am not evil, I am trying to do my job as ethically as I can. I understand you don't want to see ads. I don’t care for them myse

by icxa 7y ago

Hi -- ad industry member here -- am not evil, I am trying to do my job as ethically as I can. I understand you don't want to see ads. I don’t care for them myself at times, but when we do show them, we make sure they are as relevant, appropriate, and most importantly valuable. I understand that the HN crowd is more sensitive to being enraged by ads, but we actually get quite a bit of user feedback saying they are appreciative of the money we were able to save them by using our service. So, like anything in life, it isn’t black or white, there is a whole lot of gray.

marak830 7y ago
Surely you can target adverts based off of searched terms (as in immediate, not past), current site(eg: the article and not the reader). Beyond that you get into grey territory, and most of the time down right predatory. I can run a campaign based on location of search and keywords, that's fine for me. I don't need the user user data. That information is non specific in relation to an actual user. What excuse does anyone have for needing a users history?
ugqtq 7y ago
I don't care about ads, I care about how much you track users to show them. You say that they are relevant as if that was something to be proud of. You've had to track users across all the internet to be able to show relevant ads, so relevant ads disgust me.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  Relevant ads existed before internet was even a thing. A lawnmower ad inside a gardening magazine is every bit as relevant as a hyper targeted banner.
  - user17843 7y ago
    its not about the ads, its about the survaillence infrastructure.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      Exactly this. People somehow think that if you get rid of ads the surveillance architecture will go away. They say “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” but the converse is not true - you could be paying and STILL the company could be collecting your data, such as ISPs. We need full end to end encryption and decentralization! Everything should be opt-in by design.
  - vanadium 7y ago
    Contextual advertising (what you’re describing above) is a lot less intrusive than hyper targeted advertising. The former evaluates the context of the content being delivered by the server, while the latter evaluates an encyclopedia’s worth of data (both inferences and known traits) about the user.
    - yoz-y 7y ago
      I agree. Contextual advertising is less intrusive. What I also believe is that it is also very relevant and there is a debate about whether hyper targeted advertising actually drives more sales.
user17843 7y ago
I guess OP implies more like a structural evil, as a whole, and the broader effects on society. I have some experience with adtech, and I know a significant part of it is exploiting low-education low-income people to spend money with manipulative ads. The people who actively exploit are the advertisers, and they use technology provided by ad-tech who make sure that the amount of money being extracted out of people is as large as possible. The way to achieve this is to get as close as possible to users, which means breaking boundaries of what is basically a human right to privacy. There's no one to blame, but the overall effect of the technology has some significant side-effects, which need to be curtailed, as those low-educated people don't know how they are being played.
CameronBanga 7y ago
Thanks for making the world a better place.
- icxa 7y ago
  "Hey look at me, Mr. Self righteous HN commentor" Why does your site, http://cameronbanga.com http://cameronbanga.com, include Google Javascript? You evil person! Why are you tracking me!!! How dare you! Off with your head! Why do I need javascript to run your site? STOP OPPRESSING ME! (I obviously don't actually mean these things, just pointing out the typical HN-isms when this subject comes up, and HN is faced with the "grim" reality that a large portion of the people using this site are working in some ad-supported fashion)
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    Careful, the mask is slipping.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
cyborgx7 7y ago
I stand by my statement.
- icxa 7y ago
  And this is why things don't change: extremists abound.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    Your stance of special pleading for a manipulation industry with a massive surveillance apparatus is more extreme than mine, who thinks that is bad and shouldn't exist. You just package it in nicer wording.
    - icxa 7y ago
      Your strawman and hyperboles about an entire industry is further proof you are an extremist. You should join PETA, I heard they are looking for more people like you.
      - cyborgx7 7y ago
        No strawmans and hyperboles here. Just actual honesty. I know your industry isn't very used to it.
  - supergauntlet 7y ago
    "Tracking people through their entire use of the internet and using that to sell them things (and poorly at that) is bad!" "Actually it is good." Yeah kinda not seeing how the "correct" choice is right in the middle here. Maybe don't violate people's privacy to make an extra 0.00003% marginal revenue?
blakesterz 7y ago
" I understand you don't want to see ads. " That's not what this post is about, and not what most people here care about. I'm not attacking you here, but if you think that's what we're saying "Sucks", then you're really missing the point. Sure, we don't really want to SEE ads, but they're everywhere, and they're just part of life. Most of us just ignore them. We absolutely positively do not want to be followed around by any number of AdTech companies profiling us and selling what we do and buy. Leaking all that to all the places it gets leaked. Trading our lives and what we do with others, all so someone can show us a "better" ad in the hopes we'll pay attention. Show us an ad, fine, we can ignore it. Stop profiling everything single we do and not giving us any realistic way to opt-out. We have no idea who has all this and what will be done with it, and there's nothing we can do. All is the name of showing us a better ad.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Author here! Well said! Yeah, I definitely think advertising has a place, and I sometimes engage with ads. I know that ads work. But that's definitely not what I'm arguing against. Advertising isn't inherently bad, but the implementation currently is in most cases.
  - icxa 7y ago
    Hi author! I am actually not responding to claims made in your article (imagine that, comments that don't discuss the article!) but the broad brush painted by parent that "The ad industry is evil" I think this does a disservice to the world evil and trivializes it: Hitler is evil. War is evil. Ad tech.. Inconvenient? Frustrating? Possibly infringing on your civil liberties? All possible, likely depending on which ad company it is, but evil? Let's talk about those things! Let's avoid the extremist language what serves no one and only divides people further into their respective camps, and let's try to have an intellectually honest conversation on HN for once, but given the response to my comment, doesn't seem like today is the day.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      Hi ad industry member. I haven't used the word evil in any of my comments or posts so far.
mc32 7y ago
It’s hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not. I’d feel better if it were mocking the industry though.
dhimes 7y ago
I don't think ads are evil. I am used to the compromise of society the afford. I do think the trackers and building databases of user profiles is evil- the strive for relevance should be in the other direction. "Dumb" ads on websites that talk about content I'm interested in actually works. I've bought stuff from those ads. Following me around the internet to remind me of something I've already made a decision about is the wrong way to go. I think a lot of us here have played the ad game with Google, realize it's optimized to help G, not us, and call bullshit. Nevertheless, the industry touts its success but a lot of us think it's smoke and mirrors- basically, the ads only help with branding, which does not require such deep tracking. We think you guys know it too, but keep insisting on tracking. That makes us very suspicious: what are you doing with the data if it's not effective at getting me to buy something? And exactly how much do you know about me? So, in the eyes of many, the tracking ad industry has about as much chance of convincing us it's morally fit as Trump does.
s_Hogg 7y ago
I'm not sure he's really talking about actually having to see ads with his post. I know I don't particularly mind, companies kind of have to do it to some extent. It's the invasion of privacy that now goes with it that is being highlighted as a problem here.
antisemiotic 7y ago
Can I opt out of cyberstalking, have my dossier removed from your servers, and just see ads relevant to the site I'm visting? You know, just like newspapers and specialized magazines do?
- icxa 7y ago
  Yes, especially since we are fully compliant with CCPA, and GDPR. I can push one button and have all of your data deleted if you so wish.
  - dijksterhuis 7y ago
    Can you go do that for my Facebook, Google, Adobe etc etc ad data? Their resistance to GDPR compliance is well documented. This is the core point you’re missing. People here are talking about the industry as a whole. Not your ethical internet ad firm or you yourself. The industry. Not you or your situation. I’ve worked at a “marketing analytics solutions” company before (shudders at the memory). I had access (was a data processor) to 60 million UK people’s info on their mortgage, email address, age, marital status, car make/model, likely holiday destinations... etc etc. What we did with the data doesn’t matter. The fact it does is exist and is hidden from the customers view is the problem.
fnord123 7y ago
One ad is not a problem. Constant bombardment of ads telling people that they are inadequate without a product is emotional abuse on, literally, an industrial scale. And when people try to escape it, the practices in TFA make the whole scenario worse. Not only can you not escape it, but it's obvious that ads are being crafted to get into our individual brains and abuse us in the most effective manner possible. No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. But one couldn't reasonably say 'children love catching snowflakes landing on their tongues so it's not black or white whether avalanches are a bad thing.' That's not your position, I know, but there's not nearly as much gray as you seem to suggest.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  This is the best reply to that response so far, and pretty much the only one that doesn't miss my point. Thanks for writing it.
- cm2012 7y ago
  Probably less than 1% of ads are the "make people feel inadequate" variety. You can see this for yourself. Pick 10 random companies you remember the name of, and look up their current FB ads at https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/ https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/. And you can certainly be an "ad man" without going that route (I don't make ads like that, myself).
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Oh snap, author here. I completely forgot to mention how two factor authentication can be a ploy to get more ids for the cross-device graph, and you just reminded me. Next post maybe!
  - fnord123 7y ago
    Ha! I meant The Fine Article. Glad it sparked something. :)
obenn 7y ago
Ads are fine, and I actually like the ads in magazines. Unfortunately on the web it has become a different beast, where the industry is compromising user privacy to target individuals rather than rely on contextual advertising. This is evil and has to stop.
ineedasername 7y ago
I think you're not quite understanding the sentiment. Parent comments aside, I think most here don't object to advertising models in general, they object to the mass surveillance that is now standard in the AdTech industry. That, along with intrusive ads that degrade performance and the user experience.
magicalhippo 7y ago
There are things and services out there that I'm pretty sure I would find interesting and valuable, but that I don't know about. These things I wouldn't mind seeing an ad for, if delivered without being too disruptive. However, browsing the net without an ad blocker these days is like having unprotected sex with random people in some alley behind a bar... it's just not safe.
Lucadg 7y ago
You are participating in data collection which contributes to the creation of a surveillance machine which may one day send someone dear to you in jail. Maybe it's far fetched, maybe not but it doesn't seem worth it.
contravariant 7y ago
Did you read the article? If you think seeing ads is the worst part then you're sorely mistaken, almost negligently so. Sure there's a whole lot of gray but that doesn't mean there's no truly dark parts.
kop316 7y ago
Respectfully, I don't mind seeing ads. In fact, I like seeing relavent ads. What a sibling comment said is much how I feel, I don't want to feel like in visiting a site or using an app that it feels the right suck up as much info about me and then uses my info as currency, then when it leaks out, no one cares. I don't want to have to worry if a site is hosting malware through their ads. If you want to do it ethically, take a note from https://www.roguefitness.com/privacy-policy https://www.roguefitness.com/privacy-policy They described exactly what they do, how they use it, and they show you that they can let you opt out if you choose. I actually don't mind letting their ads through because they are so transparent about their policy.
Tsubasachan 7y ago
Its okay man we all have to pay the rent. Just trying to get by in our lovely/shitty society.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  This is a stance I can accept from someone working in advertising. This weird "advertising isn't that bad, actually" I cannot.
peteradio 7y ago
Nobody gives a shit about ads as much as they care about data being accumulated and sold to hidden third party for unknown purposes.
GonzaloQuero 7y ago
Why, yes, yes you are. Even if you try to do your job "as ethically as you can", if your job is unethical, then even the best version of it is bad. Wouldn't you feel better with yourself if you worked for something that actually provides value to people?
forgottenpass 7y ago
> Hi -- ad industry member here -- am not evil I'm not saying you are evil; but if you were, you would be the last person to know it. A near-zero percent of people we would consider "evil" think that their actions are/were not justified.
tempguy9999 7y ago
> we make sure they are as relevant, appropriate, and most importantly valuable They're so "valuable" that you admit people "don't want to see ads". Explain? > but we actually get quite a bit of user feedback saying they are appreciative of the money we were able to save them by using our service Sure you do. Show us.

by icxa 7y ago

marak830 7y ago

Surely you can target adverts based off of searched terms (as in immediate, not past), current site(eg: the article and not the reader). Beyond that you get into grey territory, and most of the time down right predatory. I can run a campaign based on location of search and keywords, that's fine for me. I don't need the user user data. That information is non specific in relation to an actual user. What excuse does anyone have for needing a users history?

ugqtq 7y ago

I don't care about ads, I care about how much you track users to show them. You say that they are relevant as if that was something to be proud of. You've had to track users across all the internet to be able to show relevant ads, so relevant ads disgust me.

yoz-y 7y ago
Relevant ads existed before internet was even a thing. A lawnmower ad inside a gardening magazine is every bit as relevant as a hyper targeted banner.
- user17843 7y ago
  its not about the ads, its about the survaillence infrastructure.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    Exactly this. People somehow think that if you get rid of ads the surveillance architecture will go away. They say “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” but the converse is not true - you could be paying and STILL the company could be collecting your data, such as ISPs. We need full end to end encryption and decentralization! Everything should be opt-in by design.
- vanadium 7y ago
  Contextual advertising (what you’re describing above) is a lot less intrusive than hyper targeted advertising. The former evaluates the context of the content being delivered by the server, while the latter evaluates an encyclopedia’s worth of data (both inferences and known traits) about the user.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    I agree. Contextual advertising is less intrusive. What I also believe is that it is also very relevant and there is a debate about whether hyper targeted advertising actually drives more sales.

user17843 7y ago

I guess OP implies more like a structural evil, as a whole, and the broader effects on society. I have some experience with adtech, and I know a significant part of it is exploiting low-education low-income people to spend money with manipulative ads. The people who actively exploit are the advertisers, and they use technology provided by ad-tech who make sure that the amount of money being extracted out of people is as large as possible. The way to achieve this is to get as close as possible to users, which means breaking boundaries of what is basically a human right to privacy. There's no one to blame, but the overall effect of the technology has some significant side-effects, which need to be curtailed, as those low-educated people don't know how they are being played.

CameronBanga 7y ago

Thanks for making the world a better place.

icxa 7y ago
"Hey look at me, Mr. Self righteous HN commentor" Why does your site, http://cameronbanga.com http://cameronbanga.com, include Google Javascript? You evil person! Why are you tracking me!!! How dare you! Off with your head! Why do I need javascript to run your site? STOP OPPRESSING ME! (I obviously don't actually mean these things, just pointing out the typical HN-isms when this subject comes up, and HN is faced with the "grim" reality that a large portion of the people using this site are working in some ad-supported fashion)
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  Careful, the mask is slipping.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

cyborgx7 7y ago

I stand by my statement.

icxa 7y ago
And this is why things don't change: extremists abound.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  Your stance of special pleading for a manipulation industry with a massive surveillance apparatus is more extreme than mine, who thinks that is bad and shouldn't exist. You just package it in nicer wording.
  - icxa 7y ago
    Your strawman and hyperboles about an entire industry is further proof you are an extremist. You should join PETA, I heard they are looking for more people like you.
    - cyborgx7 7y ago
      No strawmans and hyperboles here. Just actual honesty. I know your industry isn't very used to it.
- supergauntlet 7y ago
  "Tracking people through their entire use of the internet and using that to sell them things (and poorly at that) is bad!" "Actually it is good." Yeah kinda not seeing how the "correct" choice is right in the middle here. Maybe don't violate people's privacy to make an extra 0.00003% marginal revenue?

blakesterz 7y ago

" I understand you don't want to see ads. " That's not what this post is about, and not what most people here care about. I'm not attacking you here, but if you think that's what we're saying "Sucks", then you're really missing the point. Sure, we don't really want to SEE ads, but they're everywhere, and they're just part of life. Most of us just ignore them. We absolutely positively do not want to be followed around by any number of AdTech companies profiling us and selling what we do and buy. Leaking all that to all the places it gets leaked. Trading our lives and what we do with others, all so someone can show us a "better" ad in the hopes we'll pay attention. Show us an ad, fine, we can ignore it. Stop profiling everything single we do and not giving us any realistic way to opt-out. We have no idea who has all this and what will be done with it, and there's nothing we can do. All is the name of showing us a better ad.

tomlockwood 7y ago
Author here! Well said! Yeah, I definitely think advertising has a place, and I sometimes engage with ads. I know that ads work. But that's definitely not what I'm arguing against. Advertising isn't inherently bad, but the implementation currently is in most cases.
- icxa 7y ago
  Hi author! I am actually not responding to claims made in your article (imagine that, comments that don't discuss the article!) but the broad brush painted by parent that "The ad industry is evil" I think this does a disservice to the world evil and trivializes it: Hitler is evil. War is evil. Ad tech.. Inconvenient? Frustrating? Possibly infringing on your civil liberties? All possible, likely depending on which ad company it is, but evil? Let's talk about those things! Let's avoid the extremist language what serves no one and only divides people further into their respective camps, and let's try to have an intellectually honest conversation on HN for once, but given the response to my comment, doesn't seem like today is the day.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    Hi ad industry member. I haven't used the word evil in any of my comments or posts so far.

mc32 7y ago

It’s hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not. I’d feel better if it were mocking the industry though.

dhimes 7y ago

I don't think ads are evil. I am used to the compromise of society the afford. I do think the trackers and building databases of user profiles is evil- the strive for relevance should be in the other direction. "Dumb" ads on websites that talk about content I'm interested in actually works. I've bought stuff from those ads. Following me around the internet to remind me of something I've already made a decision about is the wrong way to go. I think a lot of us here have played the ad game with Google, realize it's optimized to help G, not us, and call bullshit. Nevertheless, the industry touts its success but a lot of us think it's smoke and mirrors- basically, the ads only help with branding, which does not require such deep tracking. We think you guys know it too, but keep insisting on tracking. That makes us very suspicious: what are you doing with the data if it's not effective at getting me to buy something? And exactly how much do you know about me? So, in the eyes of many, the tracking ad industry has about as much chance of convincing us it's morally fit as Trump does.

s_Hogg 7y ago

I'm not sure he's really talking about actually having to see ads with his post. I know I don't particularly mind, companies kind of have to do it to some extent. It's the invasion of privacy that now goes with it that is being highlighted as a problem here.

antisemiotic 7y ago

Can I opt out of cyberstalking, have my dossier removed from your servers, and just see ads relevant to the site I'm visting? You know, just like newspapers and specialized magazines do?

icxa 7y ago
Yes, especially since we are fully compliant with CCPA, and GDPR. I can push one button and have all of your data deleted if you so wish.
- dijksterhuis 7y ago
  Can you go do that for my Facebook, Google, Adobe etc etc ad data? Their resistance to GDPR compliance is well documented. This is the core point you’re missing. People here are talking about the industry as a whole. Not your ethical internet ad firm or you yourself. The industry. Not you or your situation. I’ve worked at a “marketing analytics solutions” company before (shudders at the memory). I had access (was a data processor) to 60 million UK people’s info on their mortgage, email address, age, marital status, car make/model, likely holiday destinations... etc etc. What we did with the data doesn’t matter. The fact it does is exist and is hidden from the customers view is the problem.

fnord123 7y ago

One ad is not a problem. Constant bombardment of ads telling people that they are inadequate without a product is emotional abuse on, literally, an industrial scale. And when people try to escape it, the practices in TFA make the whole scenario worse. Not only can you not escape it, but it's obvious that ads are being crafted to get into our individual brains and abuse us in the most effective manner possible. No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. But one couldn't reasonably say 'children love catching snowflakes landing on their tongues so it's not black or white whether avalanches are a bad thing.' That's not your position, I know, but there's not nearly as much gray as you seem to suggest.

cyborgx7 7y ago
This is the best reply to that response so far, and pretty much the only one that doesn't miss my point. Thanks for writing it.
cm2012 7y ago
Probably less than 1% of ads are the "make people feel inadequate" variety. You can see this for yourself. Pick 10 random companies you remember the name of, and look up their current FB ads at https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/ https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/. And you can certainly be an "ad man" without going that route (I don't make ads like that, myself).
tomlockwood 7y ago
Oh snap, author here. I completely forgot to mention how two factor authentication can be a ploy to get more ids for the cross-device graph, and you just reminded me. Next post maybe!
- fnord123 7y ago
  Ha! I meant The Fine Article. Glad it sparked something. :)

obenn 7y ago

Ads are fine, and I actually like the ads in magazines. Unfortunately on the web it has become a different beast, where the industry is compromising user privacy to target individuals rather than rely on contextual advertising. This is evil and has to stop.

ineedasername 7y ago

I think you're not quite understanding the sentiment. Parent comments aside, I think most here don't object to advertising models in general, they object to the mass surveillance that is now standard in the AdTech industry. That, along with intrusive ads that degrade performance and the user experience.

magicalhippo 7y ago

There are things and services out there that I'm pretty sure I would find interesting and valuable, but that I don't know about. These things I wouldn't mind seeing an ad for, if delivered without being too disruptive. However, browsing the net without an ad blocker these days is like having unprotected sex with random people in some alley behind a bar... it's just not safe.

Lucadg 7y ago

You are participating in data collection which contributes to the creation of a surveillance machine which may one day send someone dear to you in jail. Maybe it's far fetched, maybe not but it doesn't seem worth it.

contravariant 7y ago

Did you read the article? If you think seeing ads is the worst part then you're sorely mistaken, almost negligently so. Sure there's a whole lot of gray but that doesn't mean there's no truly dark parts.

kop316 7y ago

Respectfully, I don't mind seeing ads. In fact, I like seeing relavent ads. What a sibling comment said is much how I feel, I don't want to feel like in visiting a site or using an app that it feels the right suck up as much info about me and then uses my info as currency, then when it leaks out, no one cares. I don't want to have to worry if a site is hosting malware through their ads. If you want to do it ethically, take a note from https://www.roguefitness.com/privacy-policy https://www.roguefitness.com/privacy-policy They described exactly what they do, how they use it, and they show you that they can let you opt out if you choose. I actually don't mind letting their ads through because they are so transparent about their policy.

Tsubasachan 7y ago

Its okay man we all have to pay the rent. Just trying to get by in our lovely/shitty society.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cyborgx7 7y ago
This is a stance I can accept from someone working in advertising. This weird "advertising isn't that bad, actually" I cannot.

peteradio 7y ago

Nobody gives a shit about ads as much as they care about data being accumulated and sold to hidden third party for unknown purposes.

GonzaloQuero 7y ago

Why, yes, yes you are. Even if you try to do your job "as ethically as you can", if your job is unethical, then even the best version of it is bad. Wouldn't you feel better with yourself if you worked for something that actually provides value to people?

forgottenpass 7y ago

> Hi -- ad industry member here -- am not evil I'm not saying you are evil; but if you were, you would be the last person to know it. A near-zero percent of people we would consider "evil" think that their actions are/were not justified.

tempguy9999 7y ago

> we make sure they are as relevant, appropriate, and most importantly valuable They're so "valuable" that you admit people "don't want to see ads". Explain? > but we actually get quite a bit of user feedback saying they are appreciative of the money we were able to save them by using our service Sure you do. Show us.