4 ms·

When I tell people I don't like tracking the defense of all this nonsense is "People prefer getting relevant adverts". The campaign to normalize this is so good

When I tell people I don't like tracking the defense of all this nonsense is "People prefer getting relevant adverts". The campaign to normalize this is so good I often here consumers repeating it. But the inherent assumption is that the data is only used for benign ad targeting and ignores the possibility that the data will end up in the wrong hands like it has here. The response seems to be "{{ad tech company}} has some of the best developers in the world and they want to protect that data!". Except leaks like this are inevitable. So long as tracking is a thing, data will leak, and hostile actors will abuse it.

rbecker 6y ago
> data will leak It doesn't even have to leak. HR departments and shady government agencies could just buy it (or legally seize it). PR firms could dig through protester history and smear them so very easily.
reaperducer 6y ago
When I tell people I don't like tracking the defense of all this nonsense is "People prefer getting relevant adverts" I then ask them, "Is it working? Do you really see advertisements online that mostly show you things that are meaningful to you? Are online ads more relevant to you than what you see on TV or hear on the radio?" The honest always answer "No."
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  I see more advertisements that are relevant to me I would otherwise. Often they are just off the mark though, often I see advertisements for products similar to one I just bought. But most people only need one lawn mower, one circular saw, etc etc. Overall, I don't see it as being remotely worth the trade-off.
- soared 6y ago
  How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? And how many ads for hearing ads have you seen online? The honest answer is a lot, and none.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? When I watch Redbull TV I see zero hearing aid adverts. That's about the only commercial TV I watch. Likewise when I more frequently watched commercial TV 15 years ago, I didn't see a ton. In the years since, the demographics of network TV viewership have shifted massively and the over 65 crowd is massively over-represented. As demographics switched advertising switched. I suppose when I occasionally go to CNN or CNBC for news, I see hearing aid advertising, but the sites I generally frequent (should) know their readership better than blast us with that sort of advertising. Which is ultimately the point context based advertising delivers 90% of the benefits of target/ tracking based advertising without the performance degradation, risks, and other nonsense.
    - soared 6y ago
      That all makes sense, but your missing the monetary aspect. If I know NYT readers are my target market, I want to advertise on the NYT. Except thats absurdly expensive so I can just reach users I know read the NYT, but are currently on other websites. Same audience, much cheaper. There are a lot of caveats like this where price and business reasons play a role. If it weren't a $20B industry then your logic would probably ring more true.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        Making something less expensive to advertisers is not my problem. People sucking up piles of personal information about me is my concern. What you are missing here is by giving people the ability to advertise to New York Times users offsite takes income from the Times. If you read the NYT or you are the New York Time, this should be concerning. As a reader, you want the the value of their brand to flow back to them so they can continue doing better work.
        aleppe7766 6y ago
        TL:DR If you want to do any good to a newspaper, buy a subscription. Advertising hasn’t been enough since the late 2000s. More monetization options arised and were rapidly adopted because news venues were hungry for them, when they figured that reservation (buying ads on a specific website with no control on delivery and performance) was declining. The creepiness of all this, and the sense of entitlement of a large part of the audience, fueled the rise of Adblock, which required even more creepiness and gave birth to the present cat&mouse game.
rmrfstar 6y ago
> The campaign to normalize this is so good I often here consumers repeating it. The campaign to normalize thinking of onesself as a consumer is so good, I often hear my fellow citizens replace the noun "people" with the noun "consumers".
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Touché. But in my case only when I'm thinking about this topic.
m463 6y ago
> "People prefer getting relevant adverts" that's a script.

rbecker 6y ago

> data will leak It doesn't even have to leak. HR departments and shady government agencies could just buy it (or legally seize it). PR firms could dig through protester history and smear them so very easily.

reaperducer 6y ago

When I tell people I don't like tracking the defense of all this nonsense is "People prefer getting relevant adverts" I then ask them, "Is it working? Do you really see advertisements online that mostly show you things that are meaningful to you? Are online ads more relevant to you than what you see on TV or hear on the radio?" The honest always answer "No."

ogre_codes 6y ago
I see more advertisements that are relevant to me I would otherwise. Often they are just off the mark though, often I see advertisements for products similar to one I just bought. But most people only need one lawn mower, one circular saw, etc etc. Overall, I don't see it as being remotely worth the trade-off.
soared 6y ago
How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? And how many ads for hearing ads have you seen online? The honest answer is a lot, and none.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > How many ads for hearing ads you have seen on TV? When I watch Redbull TV I see zero hearing aid adverts. That's about the only commercial TV I watch. Likewise when I more frequently watched commercial TV 15 years ago, I didn't see a ton. In the years since, the demographics of network TV viewership have shifted massively and the over 65 crowd is massively over-represented. As demographics switched advertising switched. I suppose when I occasionally go to CNN or CNBC for news, I see hearing aid advertising, but the sites I generally frequent (should) know their readership better than blast us with that sort of advertising. Which is ultimately the point context based advertising delivers 90% of the benefits of target/ tracking based advertising without the performance degradation, risks, and other nonsense.
  - soared 6y ago
    That all makes sense, but your missing the monetary aspect. If I know NYT readers are my target market, I want to advertise on the NYT. Except thats absurdly expensive so I can just reach users I know read the NYT, but are currently on other websites. Same audience, much cheaper. There are a lot of caveats like this where price and business reasons play a role. If it weren't a $20B industry then your logic would probably ring more true.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Making something less expensive to advertisers is not my problem. People sucking up piles of personal information about me is my concern. What you are missing here is by giving people the ability to advertise to New York Times users offsite takes income from the Times. If you read the NYT or you are the New York Time, this should be concerning. As a reader, you want the the value of their brand to flow back to them so they can continue doing better work.
      - aleppe7766 6y ago
        TL:DR If you want to do any good to a newspaper, buy a subscription. Advertising hasn’t been enough since the late 2000s. More monetization options arised and were rapidly adopted because news venues were hungry for them, when they figured that reservation (buying ads on a specific website with no control on delivery and performance) was declining. The creepiness of all this, and the sense of entitlement of a large part of the audience, fueled the rise of Adblock, which required even more creepiness and gave birth to the present cat&mouse game.

rmrfstar 6y ago

> The campaign to normalize this is so good I often here consumers repeating it. The campaign to normalize thinking of onesself as a consumer is so good, I often hear my fellow citizens replace the noun "people" with the noun "consumers".

ogre_codes 6y ago
Touché. But in my case only when I'm thinking about this topic.

m463 6y ago

> "People prefer getting relevant adverts" that's a script.