4 ms·

Let's be clear, this isn't an outright ban but just a restriction. > It said political groups would soon only be able to target ads based on "general categorie

by OzzyB 7y ago

Let's be clear, this isn't an outright ban but just a restriction. > It said political groups would soon only be able to target ads based on "general categories" such as age, gender and rough location. This just means that the moneyed few with deep pockets and illicit agendas will simply have to spend more to get their message out since they won't have the benefit of niche targeting.

mc32 7y ago
Oooo! So they make even more money since the advertisers can’t target the ads and have to use more but less effective ads!!! That’s a nice side effect for business while pretending you’re being noble. Ah, the joy of signaling.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  ...or the relative value of Google's ads is decreased and advertisers take their money elsewhere
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    Seriously... My "favorite" part of posts about Google on HN is the posts that combine blind ignorance about the ads business, blind hatred of Google and pat-yourself-on-the-back cynicism. It gets _so_ tiresome.
    - ShteiLoups 7y ago
      I love the meta debate about HN. I frequently click out of a thread after reading the first half of the first comment, it's always the same thing over and over. HN is a great as an aggregator of interesting article, but the discussion is frequently lacking substance.
      - wutbrodo 7y ago
        I'd slightly disagree; the reason I complain about it so much is because there are so many people here who are clearly intelligent and thoughtful and have interesting perspectives. I go back and forth on whether picking gems out of the piles of manure is worth it. In part, I've been badly spoiled by another forum I participate in that heavily moderates tone (and tries to separate it from content). I wouldn't have guessed it, but it turns out that low-effort intellectual dishonesty and rank stupidity of the sort that annoy me here correlate pretty well with emotional incontinence, which means that the occasional low-quality commenter that pops up on that forum gets washed out pretty quickly.
  - ShteiLoups 7y ago
    I think we're in an advertising bubble right now. The internet business model is going to need to change soon.
- damq 7y ago
  By this logic, Google should get rid of ad targeting altogether. I wonder why they don't. They're clearly not as smart as you.
skybrian 7y ago
Well, it also means these tactics are less likely to go unnoticed. If some ads are actually a turnoff if seen by the wrong people then running them is riskier.
codingslave 7y ago
Nah its more complex than that. Micro targeting allows political groups to tailor their message to specific small demographics. They can tune their message slightly for each different group, drastically improving their targeting and voter appeal. When they have to target broad groups, they have to have a consistent message across all of those groups. This hurts their ability to manipulate and pander to sub populations.
- dillondoyle 7y ago
  I don't buy this argument (for some context, I work in digital politics and my agency buys digital political ads). You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet. You can also still target very specific audiences even without 1:1 audience matching a la liveramp. E.g. retargeting, specific website placements, specific youtube video/channel placements, and more. The one kind of large negative I can foresee with this restriction would be narrowing to likely voters, which is tougher without either an audience match or 3rd party data (though maybe still good enough with 'watches news' or 'visits msnbc.com' and similar). Though one can definitely argue a benefit here that speaking to only an audience of likely voters is a problem (and 'recycles' the same voters not brining new voters in), especially with Democrats who tend to only talk to those voters in VAN.
  - codingslave 7y ago
    "You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet." I think you are underestimating the level of micro targeting that FB and Google employ. If I'm trying to win Florida, theres districts that I know I can get, the gray areas, and the ones I know I will lose. If I go into those gray areas and systematically target small sub groups, to the level of only thousands or tens of thousands in each group, I can flip a whole state. Theres a reason Google and FB are worth so much, its because all previous advertising is completely inferior to the level of targeting and information they have on their audiences. 'Visits msnbc.com' is no where near what you would need. More along the lines of: Show married females from ages of 32 - 50 in <important county> my opinions on abortion. Show single men ages 20 - 30 in <important county> my opinions on gun laws (if I'm pro gun). etc... Not only is this more accurate than older methods, its much cheaper. I can get instant feedback on which ads are working, iterate and tailor my message.
matt4077 7y ago
By that logic Google, and everyone else, have been hurting themselves by offering targeting in the first place, and continue to do so by not restricting non-political advertising.
rasz 7y ago
Its not about getting your message out, its about manipulating elections by military contractors, including last big two (brexit, Trump). You can familiarize yourself with the issue by watching The Great Hack (2019) on Netflix, or even a panel by Computer History Museum: "CHM Live | The Great Hack" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y26NQdTLtaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y26NQdTLtaw

by OzzyB 7y ago

mc32 7y ago

Oooo! So they make even more money since the advertisers can’t target the ads and have to use more but less effective ads!!! That’s a nice side effect for business while pretending you’re being noble. Ah, the joy of signaling.

bagacrap 7y ago
...or the relative value of Google's ads is decreased and advertisers take their money elsewhere
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Seriously... My "favorite" part of posts about Google on HN is the posts that combine blind ignorance about the ads business, blind hatred of Google and pat-yourself-on-the-back cynicism. It gets _so_ tiresome.
  - ShteiLoups 7y ago
    I love the meta debate about HN. I frequently click out of a thread after reading the first half of the first comment, it's always the same thing over and over. HN is a great as an aggregator of interesting article, but the discussion is frequently lacking substance.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      I'd slightly disagree; the reason I complain about it so much is because there are so many people here who are clearly intelligent and thoughtful and have interesting perspectives. I go back and forth on whether picking gems out of the piles of manure is worth it. In part, I've been badly spoiled by another forum I participate in that heavily moderates tone (and tries to separate it from content). I wouldn't have guessed it, but it turns out that low-effort intellectual dishonesty and rank stupidity of the sort that annoy me here correlate pretty well with emotional incontinence, which means that the occasional low-quality commenter that pops up on that forum gets washed out pretty quickly.
- ShteiLoups 7y ago
  I think we're in an advertising bubble right now. The internet business model is going to need to change soon.
damq 7y ago
By this logic, Google should get rid of ad targeting altogether. I wonder why they don't. They're clearly not as smart as you.

skybrian 7y ago

Well, it also means these tactics are less likely to go unnoticed. If some ads are actually a turnoff if seen by the wrong people then running them is riskier.

codingslave 7y ago

Nah its more complex than that. Micro targeting allows political groups to tailor their message to specific small demographics. They can tune their message slightly for each different group, drastically improving their targeting and voter appeal. When they have to target broad groups, they have to have a consistent message across all of those groups. This hurts their ability to manipulate and pander to sub populations.

dillondoyle 7y ago
I don't buy this argument (for some context, I work in digital politics and my agency buys digital political ads). You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet. You can also still target very specific audiences even without 1:1 audience matching a la liveramp. E.g. retargeting, specific website placements, specific youtube video/channel placements, and more. The one kind of large negative I can foresee with this restriction would be narrowing to likely voters, which is tougher without either an audience match or 3rd party data (though maybe still good enough with 'watches news' or 'visits msnbc.com' and similar). Though one can definitely argue a benefit here that speaking to only an audience of likely voters is a problem (and 'recycles' the same voters not brining new voters in), especially with Democrats who tend to only talk to those voters in VAN.
- codingslave 7y ago
  "You can micro target political speech through non-digital channels such as mail, phones, doors, & addressable cable. Campaigns have been doing this for a LONG time - before the internet." I think you are underestimating the level of micro targeting that FB and Google employ. If I'm trying to win Florida, theres districts that I know I can get, the gray areas, and the ones I know I will lose. If I go into those gray areas and systematically target small sub groups, to the level of only thousands or tens of thousands in each group, I can flip a whole state. Theres a reason Google and FB are worth so much, its because all previous advertising is completely inferior to the level of targeting and information they have on their audiences. 'Visits msnbc.com' is no where near what you would need. More along the lines of: Show married females from ages of 32 - 50 in <important county> my opinions on abortion. Show single men ages 20 - 30 in <important county> my opinions on gun laws (if I'm pro gun). etc... Not only is this more accurate than older methods, its much cheaper. I can get instant feedback on which ads are working, iterate and tailor my message.

matt4077 7y ago

By that logic Google, and everyone else, have been hurting themselves by offering targeting in the first place, and continue to do so by not restricting non-political advertising.

rasz 7y ago

Its not about getting your message out, its about manipulating elections by military contractors, including last big two (brexit, Trump). You can familiarize yourself with the issue by watching The Great Hack (2019) on Netflix, or even a panel by Computer History Museum: "CHM Live | The Great Hack" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y26NQdTLtaw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y26NQdTLtaw