4 ms·

Good points, actually very interesting, especially the budget part. But I wasn't talking about just the ads, I was talking about the tracking to optimize those

by dakna 7y ago

Good points, actually very interesting, especially the budget part. But I wasn't talking about just the ads, I was talking about the tracking to optimize those ads. I don't care about the ads. Show me ads, I ignore them anyway. I just don't want to be tracked to build out my personality profile for the rest of my life, because I don't know who will get access to that data and what it might be used for. Show ads based on my search term, not based on my browser, email and location history. They will have the same effect as the optimized ones: none. Just keep in mind, the cohort I was talking about, was the one that will not be monetized. It is the cohort that still sees ads, but will never convert. So I'm not sure why I would buy my own ad space for an amount of money that is based on the usual conversion rate, when my conversion or click rate for my sample of n=1 is zero all the time. My profile correlates to zero spending, it is not worth the average ad price. Google Contributor kind of proves my point about the efforts required being too costly. It was easier to inject a person as a buyer for their own profile into the merchandising system, than to rework all the tracking tools and the analytics that runs on it to stop tracking that specific person. So yes, my $10k is still not enough. > Why would Google let you pay to make their product less useful for you? Because I value privacy as a principle more than a slightly less useful product, and I would pay for it. But apparently I can't afford it.

thu2111 7y ago
Many ads are brand ads. You don't have to click for the advertiser to get what they want, just see their ad at all. Even for click-based ads, well, most people claim they never click on ads. But, they're wrong. Again, Google has lots of data on this. You will never be allowed to opt out of ads if you aren't paying your way, because lots of people would do it and that would render the internet economically unviable (of course no such ad network would survive for more than 5 minutes). It was easier to inject a person as a buyer for their own profile into the merchandising system, than to rework all the tracking tools and the analytics that runs on it to stop tracking that specific person. No, they did it that way because otherwise it'd have reduced publisher earnings who would then have gone to other ad networks with no Contributor programme. How do you set the price of not seeing an ad otherwise? The price of seeing it is set by auction. It had nothing to do with tracking which can be disabled by anyone here: https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922?hl=en-GB and here https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout Tracking isn't actually the big hammer people imagine it is. That's a fiction invented by journalists. It helps a bit but only really basic stuff like "show German people ads in German" or remarketing (show people ads for products they were looking at buying very recently). That's why it's OK to opt out. You become worth a bit less and you'll see more irritating ads as a result, but very few use this option. Because I value privacy as a principle more than a slightly less useful product, and I would pay for it. But apparently I can't afford it. Go disable ad tracking then. The options have been there for many years.
- dakna 7y ago
  I think there is more to privacy than just disabling personalized ads, which is the reason I'm not bothered by them. I'm more concerned about personalized search results and filter bubbles. But I also think it is totally fine that the system works for you and you get value out of it.

by dakna 7y ago

thu2111 7y ago

Many ads are brand ads. You don't have to click for the advertiser to get what they want, just see their ad at all. Even for click-based ads, well, most people claim they never click on ads. But, they're wrong. Again, Google has lots of data on this. You will never be allowed to opt out of ads if you aren't paying your way, because lots of people would do it and that would render the internet economically unviable (of course no such ad network would survive for more than 5 minutes). It was easier to inject a person as a buyer for their own profile into the merchandising system, than to rework all the tracking tools and the analytics that runs on it to stop tracking that specific person. No, they did it that way because otherwise it'd have reduced publisher earnings who would then have gone to other ad networks with no Contributor programme. How do you set the price of not seeing an ad otherwise? The price of seeing it is set by auction. It had nothing to do with tracking which can be disabled by anyone here: https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922?hl=en-GB https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922?hl=en-GB and here https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout Tracking isn't actually the big hammer people imagine it is. That's a fiction invented by journalists. It helps a bit but only really basic stuff like "show German people ads in German" or remarketing (show people ads for products they were looking at buying very recently). That's why it's OK to opt out. You become worth a bit less and you'll see more irritating ads as a result, but very few use this option. Because I value privacy as a principle more than a slightly less useful product, and I would pay for it. But apparently I can't afford it. Go disable ad tracking then. The options have been there for many years.

dakna 7y ago
I think there is more to privacy than just disabling personalized ads, which is the reason I'm not bothered by them. I'm more concerned about personalized search results and filter bubbles. But I also think it is totally fine that the system works for you and you get value out of it.