7 ms·

Advertisement works because most people do not feel this way and are ok with metrics and adds as long as they get something back. Is that ok, or is there a rati

by chr1 7y ago

Advertisement works because most people do not feel this way and are ok with metrics and adds as long as they get something back. Is that ok, or is there a rational argument why everyone should feel bad about being subject to metrics?

colechristensen 7y ago
Ignorance and acceptance aren't the same thing. Many people would be and regularly become disturbed by the amount of tracking, but it is complex and difficult to understand on purpose. GPDR tried to make it obvious but missed the mark, making everybody accept cookies is just a blind annoyance. The rational argument against tracking is the enormous power it enables. Humans aren't aware enough of how easily they can be manipulated, more information means more and easier manipulation. More information also enables actual power for the abuse of the population. The power assymetry can only be abused and it will gradually grow until it will be very difficult to remove.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > GPDR tried to make it obvious but missed the mark, making everybody accept cookies is just a blind annoyance. It's almost two years now, and while I don't think cookie warnings are GDPR's fault (it was earlier regulation, that was trying to give adtech industry a chance to self-regulate), I do have this feeling that it indeed missed the mark. I currently feel the problem is enforcement. There's loads of sites that managed to implement a GDPR consent form in a way that defeats the spirit of the law, and often enough the letter as well. I was hoping that a hammer would be swiftly brought down on those cases, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
  - close04 7y ago
    See techcrunch, the site with one of the most anti-consumer cookie preference practices yet a site that is very often linked on the first page of HN. This is proof that even informed people will get over any reservations if the content piques their curiosity.
raxxorrax 7y ago
It is ok if that is their decision and they have the ability to choose. I would contest that this is realized for modern devices. There are so numerous "rational" arguments against it, that it is not even funny. And I doubt that many people like the current situation. The trick is to not ask. Many people I know don't connect their TV to the net at all. They may would use its features, but not wanting to be spied upon is one of the big reasons. That said, even the older generation starts to use TV less or have devices that record the program and cut out advertising while not connecting their "smart" TV.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Advertising works because people have little choice in the matter. It's exploiting that people value "consumption with ads" more than "no consumption at all", and most are not skilled enough to remove the ads themselves. (It's not like they wouldn't do it if they knew how; remember the popularity of VCRs? Their main use case was that on a recorded show, you could fast-forward through ads.) People are not OK with metrics; most population has no understanding about the extent to which they're being surveilled or measured. There's also a growing feeling of helplessness, because the more the snooping is becoming known, the more apparent it seems that it's the same as with advertising - unless you're a tech-savvy person, you have no choice at all. EDIT: A big part of the problems are the constant lies of omission. I believe much fewer people would be willing to connect their TVs to the Internet if on the box, next to "you can watch Netflix from your couch", there would be text saying "we'll spy on you as much as we can, and this data might wind up at your insurance provider". Or an asterisk next to "Netflix" explaining that "the service will work until we get bored or they change their API, i.e. for about two to three years".
- stevenicr 7y ago
  Indeed. I had planned to purchase a few Roku devices for me and someone else. Then I stumbled upon an article describing the amount of third party data sharing and how it varies by channel. Stopped me from purchasing. And this is after a bit of research on streaming devices and plans and all that! People in one of the online neighbor groups routinely ask about options for this channel or that channel and such as the lineup out here with some services seems to change regularly and lots of people are moving.. invariably someone squeeks about how great their Roku device is... I ask them how they like the device sharing info about what is being watched and when with multiple third parties, If they knew that before purchasing, and if they tell other people who use it... every time the answer has been 'this is the first I've heard of this"
  - jasonjayr 7y ago
    Cable companies to this too with their STB. OTA or pirating content is the only way to maintain privacy.
- 7y ago
neiman 7y ago
Everyone should feel ad about being subject to metrics, because anyone can be manipulated given the right knowledge about them.
Nicksil 7y ago
>most people do not feel this way and are ok with metrics and adds Where did you get this information? I suspect most people have no idea what goes on behind the curtain.
- chr1 7y ago
  I do not feel that way, and was fascinated by the intensity with which some people on HN dislike metrics and adds. So I had tried an informal survey of people i knew, and out of 39 only 7 were somewhat concerned and some said they thought phones and tvs can capture video or audio and were not particularly concerned even with that. Another indirect piece of evidence is that even NSA backdoors did not get the attention they deserved.
Razengan 7y ago
How many people do you know who have actually purchased something solely because of advertisement? Sometimes I wonder if the whole pervasive advertisement racket isn’t a case of the emperor with no clothes, if not a front for more nefarious ends.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  I dislike advertising as much as the next person, but dismissing it as not working is attempting to handwave reality away. I am saying this as I am currently going through a graduate marketing course. It is bananas. If there is one you learn from marketing really fast is: 1. what is the reality? 2. how to manipulate it To answer your surface question. You may be an outlier, but I can name purchases resulting from an ad. Impulsive purchases are a thing.
yomly 7y ago
Don't know why you're getting downed for this, sample size of two: My dad's response to "smart TVs send back everything you watch and Samsung are the worst" was "I expected as much..." <— he owns a Samsung smart tv Person who works for civil service who is not yet even 30 "our government is crazy inefficient, each service and their data are siloed and cannot talk to each other, so we can't know that Joe Bloggs in HMRC is the Joe Bloggs in the NHS and Joe Bloggs on this council tax register... Why can't everything be connected like it is with Google/Facebook. I find myself connecting things up so I get better suggestions" In my opinion the surveillance economy is one bad leader away from a 1984 hell on earth but that opinion isn't nearly as prevalent as people in tech would hope. But it's also not constructive to patronize people with the opinion "oh it's because they don't know how bad it is..." etc I think some people don't care. Some people see some of the value the metrics driven approaches can bring. Some people don't agree that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. After all I find it hard to believe that all those devs at Facebook and Google are categorically amoral - life isn't black and white like that

by chr1 7y ago

colechristensen 7y ago

Ignorance and acceptance aren't the same thing. Many people would be and regularly become disturbed by the amount of tracking, but it is complex and difficult to understand on purpose. GPDR tried to make it obvious but missed the mark, making everybody accept cookies is just a blind annoyance. The rational argument against tracking is the enormous power it enables. Humans aren't aware enough of how easily they can be manipulated, more information means more and easier manipulation. More information also enables actual power for the abuse of the population. The power assymetry can only be abused and it will gradually grow until it will be very difficult to remove.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> GPDR tried to make it obvious but missed the mark, making everybody accept cookies is just a blind annoyance. It's almost two years now, and while I don't think cookie warnings are GDPR's fault (it was earlier regulation, that was trying to give adtech industry a chance to self-regulate), I do have this feeling that it indeed missed the mark. I currently feel the problem is enforcement. There's loads of sites that managed to implement a GDPR consent form in a way that defeats the spirit of the law, and often enough the letter as well. I was hoping that a hammer would be swiftly brought down on those cases, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
- close04 7y ago
  See techcrunch, the site with one of the most anti-consumer cookie preference practices yet a site that is very often linked on the first page of HN. This is proof that even informed people will get over any reservations if the content piques their curiosity.

raxxorrax 7y ago

It is ok if that is their decision and they have the ability to choose. I would contest that this is realized for modern devices. There are so numerous "rational" arguments against it, that it is not even funny. And I doubt that many people like the current situation. The trick is to not ask. Many people I know don't connect their TV to the net at all. They may would use its features, but not wanting to be spied upon is one of the big reasons. That said, even the older generation starts to use TV less or have devices that record the program and cut out advertising while not connecting their "smart" TV.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Advertising works because people have little choice in the matter. It's exploiting that people value "consumption with ads" more than "no consumption at all", and most are not skilled enough to remove the ads themselves. (It's not like they wouldn't do it if they knew how; remember the popularity of VCRs? Their main use case was that on a recorded show, you could fast-forward through ads.) People are not OK with metrics; most population has no understanding about the extent to which they're being surveilled or measured. There's also a growing feeling of helplessness, because the more the snooping is becoming known, the more apparent it seems that it's the same as with advertising - unless you're a tech-savvy person, you have no choice at all. EDIT: A big part of the problems are the constant lies of omission. I believe much fewer people would be willing to connect their TVs to the Internet if on the box, next to "you can watch Netflix from your couch", there would be text saying "we'll spy on you as much as we can, and this data might wind up at your insurance provider". Or an asterisk next to "Netflix" explaining that "the service will work until we get bored or they change their API, i.e. for about two to three years".

stevenicr 7y ago
Indeed. I had planned to purchase a few Roku devices for me and someone else. Then I stumbled upon an article describing the amount of third party data sharing and how it varies by channel. Stopped me from purchasing. And this is after a bit of research on streaming devices and plans and all that! People in one of the online neighbor groups routinely ask about options for this channel or that channel and such as the lineup out here with some services seems to change regularly and lots of people are moving.. invariably someone squeeks about how great their Roku device is... I ask them how they like the device sharing info about what is being watched and when with multiple third parties, If they knew that before purchasing, and if they tell other people who use it... every time the answer has been 'this is the first I've heard of this"
- jasonjayr 7y ago
  Cable companies to this too with their STB. OTA or pirating content is the only way to maintain privacy.
7y ago

neiman 7y ago

Everyone should feel ad about being subject to metrics, because anyone can be manipulated given the right knowledge about them.

Nicksil 7y ago

>most people do not feel this way and are ok with metrics and adds Where did you get this information? I suspect most people have no idea what goes on behind the curtain.

chr1 7y ago
I do not feel that way, and was fascinated by the intensity with which some people on HN dislike metrics and adds. So I had tried an informal survey of people i knew, and out of 39 only 7 were somewhat concerned and some said they thought phones and tvs can capture video or audio and were not particularly concerned even with that. Another indirect piece of evidence is that even NSA backdoors did not get the attention they deserved.

Razengan 7y ago

How many people do you know who have actually purchased something solely because of advertisement? Sometimes I wonder if the whole pervasive advertisement racket isn’t a case of the emperor with no clothes, if not a front for more nefarious ends.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I dislike advertising as much as the next person, but dismissing it as not working is attempting to handwave reality away. I am saying this as I am currently going through a graduate marketing course. It is bananas. If there is one you learn from marketing really fast is: 1. what is the reality? 2. how to manipulate it To answer your surface question. You may be an outlier, but I can name purchases resulting from an ad. Impulsive purchases are a thing.

yomly 7y ago

Don't know why you're getting downed for this, sample size of two: My dad's response to "smart TVs send back everything you watch and Samsung are the worst" was "I expected as much..." <— he owns a Samsung smart tv Person who works for civil service who is not yet even 30 "our government is crazy inefficient, each service and their data are siloed and cannot talk to each other, so we can't know that Joe Bloggs in HMRC is the Joe Bloggs in the NHS and Joe Bloggs on this council tax register... Why can't everything be connected like it is with Google/Facebook. I find myself connecting things up so I get better suggestions" In my opinion the surveillance economy is one bad leader away from a 1984 hell on earth but that opinion isn't nearly as prevalent as people in tech would hope. But it's also not constructive to patronize people with the opinion "oh it's because they don't know how bad it is..." etc I think some people don't care. Some people see some of the value the metrics driven approaches can bring. Some people don't agree that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. After all I find it hard to believe that all those devs at Facebook and Google are categorically amoral - life isn't black and white like that