4 ms·
To me, this seems like a very balanced approach. Interested in the HN take, what level of targeting would be appropriate to allow? I can think of arguments both
by jackdeansmith 7y ago
To me, this seems like a very balanced approach. Interested in the HN take, what level of targeting would be appropriate to allow? I can think of arguments both for and against even relatively broad targeting based on location and demographics.
- jonplackett 7y agoi would say age, gender, location, and leave it at that!
- jonplackett 7y agomaybe not gender actually, now I think of it, and maybe not age or location either. force them to just broadcast the same message to everyone, and that's it.
- jackdeansmith 7y agoYeah I've been going back and forth on this. I think some location targeting is important though. For example, if you're running for mayor I don't think you should have to advertise to the whole state or country. I think the real question is should you be able to sub-target the voting populace? (i.e. I'm running for a statewide race but only want to advertise to certain cities)
- olliej 7y agoIf you’re up for election in region X, then your ads should have to be shown to everyone in region X.
- olliej 7y agoWhy age and gender? Those are super easily (and frequently) exploited.
- jonplackett 7y agoI initially wrote that because it seemed like the kind of thing that has historically be targetable, before online advertising - eg. by buying space in a particular magazine more prevalently read by that age group or gender. BUT I immediately took it back with another comment. I think the difference is that while you could target those specific groups back then, you still had to take out an ad that _could_ be seen by everyone else.
- jobigoud 7y agoZero targeting. Why would the message change based on the audience? I can't see any legitimate use case.