3 ms·

> In fact - advertising that is 'well targeted' is considerably less annoying than ads that are poorly targetted. And better than targeted ads are ads that onl

> In fact - advertising that is 'well targeted' is considerably less annoying than ads that are poorly targetted. And better than targeted ads are ads that only need contextual information to work. If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there. > unless you are willing to pay for apps - you might now see 10x more ads appearing on pages than otherwise. I do in fact pay for apps, and I'd very interested in seeing the data collection + sale markets collapse, so that apps are not tempted to double-dip and sell my data anyway. > The better we are able to connect people with the things they want, the better we all are. I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better. Advertising exists to sell you a product, totally regardless of whether it's the actual best product for your needs. > Of course, privacy matters as well If advertising can be done even 50-60% as well without scooping every piece of user data it can get its hands on, then it should be.

jariel 6y ago
"If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there." Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. The value of a vistor to a 'sports site' may be considerably more for some other product or service. The fact is - most content is placed on sites for which there is no obvious context: Facebook, Twitter, news - none of it provides much information. "I do in fact pay for apps" - it doesn't matter what you or I do - it matters what people do. The fact is, people are considerably more likely to opt for ad-based products than pay-based products, and for some kinds of products, it has a strategic consideration (i.e. those with network effects). Ads are not going away. "I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better." People never knew they needed a smartphone, did they? Nobody was thinking 'hey I really want a 'big screen phone'. So I agree 'search for stuff' should be better, but advertising is not going away. The 'ill effects' of privacy are negligible. Nobody is harmed because of what FB is able to discern 'out of network' vs. what it already knows from what you do 'on network'. There are definitely considerations, but in reality, no harm. Can you think of examples where you, or someone you know has been harmed by FB out of network data collection? Ads are not going away, better ads are better for everyone, we need to figure out how to deal with privacy.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  > Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. It quite literally is. I like mountain biking, if I go to Pinkbike (largest MTB news site), all the ads are for mountain biking products. If I'm there, I don't want to see ads for cloud services, or toasters, because that's literally not what I'm interested in at this point. > The value of a vistor to a 'sports site' may be considerably more for some other product or service. Like what? Probably less utility to the user though. > The fact is, people are considerably more likely to opt for ad-based products than pay-based products Many products are advertising only, and there's a strong culture (pushed by the advertising industry I might ad) of ad-supported above all else. > The 'ill effects' of privacy are negligible...Nobody is harmed because of what FB is able to discern 'out of network' vs. what it already knows from what you do 'on network'. In your opinion, sure. So what, we should all just have to put up with it, just because Facebook thinks it "deserves" to make money. Phillip Morris and friends argued that cigarettes didn't harm anybody as well. > There are definitely considerations, but in reality, no harm. The previous American election and the well documented effect of troll farms would indicate otherwise. Targeted advertising, enabled by invasion of privacy and amplified by the ill-effects of social-networks literally enabled that directly. The "chilling effect" of constant monitoring on culture is a well documented effect. > Ads are not going away, better ads are better for everyone, we need to figure out how to deal with privacy. "Ads are here, who cares about privacy, we want to make money". We have a right to privacy, advertisers not have right to make money, and when rights and advertising collide, I don't see any reason beyond "let's just endlessly feed people to the machine of capitalism" why the latter should be allowed to win.
  - jariel 6y ago
    You are conflating 'targetting = harm' with the more broad concern of 'private information in private hands = harm'. It's a huge stretch to say 'targetted ads disrupt elections'. What if we could to 'perfect targetting' without invasion of privacy? Well, the 'Evil Russians' would still be able to try to use ads. They are completely separate issues. 'The Russians' FYI mostly use FB pages, Reddit pages and fake groups to generate outrage, not just ads. There isn't really specific harm to individuals by FB having this information. It 'feels' creepy, but it's really not a material issue. It's something we would rather not have, obviously, and there are elements of privacy we definitely don't want to give up (ie intimate moments haard by Alexa), but in general not something that's bad.

jariel 6y ago

"If I'm on a page for a bit of sports equipment, I'm probably interested in sports equipment, or at the very least sports. Didn't need a complex data collection and analysis pipeline there." Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. The value of a vistor to a 'sports site' may be considerably more for some other product or service. The fact is - most content is placed on sites for which there is no obvious context: Facebook, Twitter, news - none of it provides much information. "I do in fact pay for apps" - it doesn't matter what you or I do - it matters what people do. The fact is, people are considerably more likely to opt for ad-based products than pay-based products, and for some kinds of products, it has a strategic consideration (i.e. those with network effects). Ads are not going away. "I'd suggest that the more efficiently we are able to let people find what they need, the better." People never knew they needed a smartphone, did they? Nobody was thinking 'hey I really want a 'big screen phone'. So I agree 'search for stuff' should be better, but advertising is not going away. The 'ill effects' of privacy are negligible. Nobody is harmed because of what FB is able to discern 'out of network' vs. what it already knows from what you do 'on network'. There are definitely considerations, but in reality, no harm. Can you think of examples where you, or someone you know has been harmed by FB out of network data collection? Ads are not going away, better ads are better for everyone, we need to figure out how to deal with privacy.

FridgeSeal 6y ago
> Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. It quite literally is. I like mountain biking, if I go to Pinkbike (largest MTB news site), all the ads are for mountain biking products. If I'm there, I don't want to see ads for cloud services, or toasters, because that's literally not what I'm interested in at this point. > The value of a vistor to a 'sports site' may be considerably more for some other product or service. Like what? Probably less utility to the user though. > The fact is, people are considerably more likely to opt for ad-based products than pay-based products Many products are advertising only, and there's a strong culture (pushed by the advertising industry I might ad) of ad-supported above all else. > The 'ill effects' of privacy are negligible...Nobody is harmed because of what FB is able to discern 'out of network' vs. what it already knows from what you do 'on network'. In your opinion, sure. So what, we should all just have to put up with it, just because Facebook thinks it "deserves" to make money. Phillip Morris and friends argued that cigarettes didn't harm anybody as well. > There are definitely considerations, but in reality, no harm. The previous American election and the well documented effect of troll farms would indicate otherwise. Targeted advertising, enabled by invasion of privacy and amplified by the ill-effects of social-networks literally enabled that directly. The "chilling effect" of constant monitoring on culture is a well documented effect. > Ads are not going away, better ads are better for everyone, we need to figure out how to deal with privacy. "Ads are here, who cares about privacy, we want to make money". We have a right to privacy, advertisers not have right to make money, and when rights and advertising collide, I don't see any reason beyond "let's just endlessly feed people to the machine of capitalism" why the latter should be allowed to win.
- jariel 6y ago
  You are conflating 'targetting = harm' with the more broad concern of 'private information in private hands = harm'. It's a huge stretch to say 'targetted ads disrupt elections'. What if we could to 'perfect targetting' without invasion of privacy? Well, the 'Evil Russians' would still be able to try to use ads. They are completely separate issues. 'The Russians' FYI mostly use FB pages, Reddit pages and fake groups to generate outrage, not just ads. There isn't really specific harm to individuals by FB having this information. It 'feels' creepy, but it's really not a material issue. It's something we would rather not have, obviously, and there are elements of privacy we definitely don't want to give up (ie intimate moments haard by Alexa), but in general not something that's bad.