4 ms·

>Who would opt-in to those? The OP's approach doesn't depend on people opting into legal ads. You can use ML/regressions/whatever to extrapolate the best peopl

>Who would opt-in to those? The OP's approach doesn't depend on people opting into legal ads. You can use ML/regressions/whatever to extrapolate the best people to show which type of legal ads based on their interests, even if those interests do not include "Legal". There doesn't even need to be an opt-out option at all. I don't think consumers would mind, since opt-outs reduce the service's advertising revenue which in turn increases the cost of the service. Almost no one wants to pay more money.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> You can use ML/regressions/whatever But do you not feed that with all sorts of data you aggregate about the user?
- keenmaster 6y ago
  When a user volunteers granular data about their interests, you can use pre-existing correlates between those interests and purchasing probabilities. Those correlates can be derived from exogenous data generated from a subset of users with the same interests (who voluntarily accept more tracking for free premium features), experiments, educated estimates from experts, etc... The above approach might not be perfect, but I would compare it to the recent trend towards organic food. Organic food is simply costlier and less efficient to produce. Nonetheless, a growing number of people wouldn't do without it. They only visit stores with organic meat and produce. Websites that completely eschew tracking and third party tracker data can be the "Whole Foods" of websites.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
You can infer a lot about which sort of stories people read especially for news papers - and also their geo location. Basic ML clustering - its not perfect.
salawat 6y ago
>I don't think consumers would mind, since opt-outs reduce the service's advertising revenue which in turn increases the cost of the service. Almost no one wants to pay more money. Your natural learning just failed. Congratulations. Can't wait to see the Machine learned version you want to force on people completely unawares of what you're doing. Privacy bloody means something. Until you start respecting people's desire to be left well enough alone, and not have their attention imposed on by obnoxious advertising, all you are going to door ensure that the wave of sentiment against the practice grows more and more severe.
- keenmaster 6y ago
  So we’re not just anti-tracking now, but also completely anti-advertising? How else do you think free services will get the revenue they need? Do you think all of them will be able to survive solely on patron revenue and purchases? Some surely can, but you’re making a universal argument here. Wherever advertising is necessary to keep a website running and up to date, being anti-advertising is akin to being anti-working to get your money or anti-walking to get to your destination.

MattGaiser 6y ago

> You can use ML/regressions/whatever But do you not feed that with all sorts of data you aggregate about the user?

keenmaster 6y ago
When a user volunteers granular data about their interests, you can use pre-existing correlates between those interests and purchasing probabilities. Those correlates can be derived from exogenous data generated from a subset of users with the same interests (who voluntarily accept more tracking for free premium features), experiments, educated estimates from experts, etc... The above approach might not be perfect, but I would compare it to the recent trend towards organic food. Organic food is simply costlier and less efficient to produce. Nonetheless, a growing number of people wouldn't do without it. They only visit stores with organic meat and produce. Websites that completely eschew tracking and third party tracker data can be the "Whole Foods" of websites.

C1sc0cat 6y ago

You can infer a lot about which sort of stories people read especially for news papers - and also their geo location. Basic ML clustering - its not perfect.

salawat 6y ago

>I don't think consumers would mind, since opt-outs reduce the service's advertising revenue which in turn increases the cost of the service. Almost no one wants to pay more money. Your natural learning just failed. Congratulations. Can't wait to see the Machine learned version you want to force on people completely unawares of what you're doing. Privacy bloody means something. Until you start respecting people's desire to be left well enough alone, and not have their attention imposed on by obnoxious advertising, all you are going to door ensure that the wave of sentiment against the practice grows more and more severe.

keenmaster 6y ago
So we’re not just anti-tracking now, but also completely anti-advertising? How else do you think free services will get the revenue they need? Do you think all of them will be able to survive solely on patron revenue and purchases? Some surely can, but you’re making a universal argument here. Wherever advertising is necessary to keep a website running and up to date, being anti-advertising is akin to being anti-working to get your money or anti-walking to get to your destination.