5 ms·

This does highlight a real problem- advertisers feel like they deserve a better tool than the users they're targeting.

by hashkb 6y ago

otabdeveloper4 6y ago
Why is it a problem if they're the ones paying for it?
- MichaelMcG 6y ago
  Exactly, a segment of social media users don't mind or are largely apathetic to the advertising/data collection because it keeps the platforms free--that's all that matters to them. The advertisers are effectively the customer, with the social media platform acting as a vehicle to reach the willing end-user. With this model, a polished & efficient dashboard/UI for advertiser engagement is as important (if not more important) than the front-end experience that provides end-user engagement.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I am sympathetic to the free-but-ad-supported model. This is how we get Reddit, Stackoverflow, and Google Maps which is a fucking global map and GPS with much better navigation quality than any of its predecessors and it costs exactly $0 to the end user. It might be the case that there is simply not enough subscription revenue in the world to fund such an operation without advertising. People forget just how much objectively good and useful stuff we have access to because of ad-supported $0 products. Hell, you could argue that Tensorflow and PyTorch themselves are ad-supported products. The sticking point is that your old ad-supported classifieds paper and network news channels weren't surveilling you across the Web. And as much as I think we need strict data privacy laws, it's hard to ignore the fact that Facebook ads used to be for penis pills and karate scams, but now for the most part are things that I (or at least my demographic) might want to buy.
- freehunter 6y ago
  Because the rest of us aren’t given the option to pay for it. “But it’s free” is a ridiculous argument when there’s no paid alternative.
  - RestlessMind 6y ago
    This is simply not true in my experience. Most prominent example is Youtube, where there is an option for an ad-free experience which is decently priced. And yet, the adoption is very low and you still see people complaining about ads on Youtube all the time. I guess a vast majority of people simply don't want to pay if there is a somewhat acceptable free alternative.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      I'm paying for many "freely available" services, like RSS readers, email service, and more. I pay to not be the product. The reason I do not pay for YouTube is that despite paying, I'm still the product - Google is still collecting every bit of data about me, to spam me on their other channels. Instead, I use YouTube (and every other Google product) logged-out, deleting cookies often[0]. I can't do that if I pay for YouTube. [0] I used to reject cookies, but Google has become unusable that way -- everything goes back to defaults which are exceptionally bad for me.
    - thewebcount 6y ago
      > Most prominent example is Youtube, where there is an option for an ad-free experience which is decently priced. And yet, the adoption is very low and you still see people complaining about ads on Youtube all the time. For me, this is similar to why I won't pay for the New York Times subscription, either. I mainly only do stuff on both sites when I find a link to their site. I don't go to their site to do stuff on my own. Why would I subscribe to a site that I don't go to on my own? I do subscribe to ArsTechnica, for example, because I go there frequently. Furthermore, I might not mind ads, but the ads on YouTube are very obnoxious. There's no intelligence, so you get weird situations like watching a 2 minute ad before being able to watch a 30 second video. Or ads cutting off the speaker mid word. Who thinks that's a good experience? If they can't get that stuff right, why would I pay them? And on top of that, I find YouTube's "Hey did you know you can pay us money now?!?!?!" pop-ups all over the page to be obnoxious enough that I have decided I will never pay them any money. Were I a regular visitor who wasn't so off-put by their ham-fisted advertising, I might have considered it, but now they've made going to their site so unpleasant I just avoid it if I can, or hold my nose for a few minutes when watching something with ads. Then I get away from their site as quickly as possible.
- hashkb 6y ago
  Many users felt locked in to FB / like it was a vital part of their life for quite a while before it became an advertising platform. It's only attractive to advertisers if it's a good product for users. They pioneered the business model of selling users out, and in general users think that's gross.
thetanil 6y ago
This makes it sound like FB has done something to improve the tool for the users.

This does highlight a real problem- advertisers feel like they deserve a better tool than the users they're targeting.

by hashkb 6y ago

This does highlight a real problem- advertisers feel like they deserve a better tool than the users they're targeting.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

Why is it a problem if they're the ones paying for it?

MichaelMcG 6y ago
Exactly, a segment of social media users don't mind or are largely apathetic to the advertising/data collection because it keeps the platforms free--that's all that matters to them. The advertisers are effectively the customer, with the social media platform acting as a vehicle to reach the willing end-user. With this model, a polished & efficient dashboard/UI for advertiser engagement is as important (if not more important) than the front-end experience that provides end-user engagement.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I am sympathetic to the free-but-ad-supported model. This is how we get Reddit, Stackoverflow, and Google Maps which is a fucking global map and GPS with much better navigation quality than any of its predecessors and it costs exactly $0 to the end user. It might be the case that there is simply not enough subscription revenue in the world to fund such an operation without advertising. People forget just how much objectively good and useful stuff we have access to because of ad-supported $0 products. Hell, you could argue that Tensorflow and PyTorch themselves are ad-supported products. The sticking point is that your old ad-supported classifieds paper and network news channels weren't surveilling you across the Web. And as much as I think we need strict data privacy laws, it's hard to ignore the fact that Facebook ads used to be for penis pills and karate scams, but now for the most part are things that I (or at least my demographic) might want to buy.
freehunter 6y ago
Because the rest of us aren’t given the option to pay for it. “But it’s free” is a ridiculous argument when there’s no paid alternative.
- RestlessMind 6y ago
  This is simply not true in my experience. Most prominent example is Youtube, where there is an option for an ad-free experience which is decently priced. And yet, the adoption is very low and you still see people complaining about ads on Youtube all the time. I guess a vast majority of people simply don't want to pay if there is a somewhat acceptable free alternative.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    I'm paying for many "freely available" services, like RSS readers, email service, and more. I pay to not be the product. The reason I do not pay for YouTube is that despite paying, I'm still the product - Google is still collecting every bit of data about me, to spam me on their other channels. Instead, I use YouTube (and every other Google product) logged-out, deleting cookies often[0]. I can't do that if I pay for YouTube. [0] I used to reject cookies, but Google has become unusable that way -- everything goes back to defaults which are exceptionally bad for me.
  - thewebcount 6y ago
    > Most prominent example is Youtube, where there is an option for an ad-free experience which is decently priced. And yet, the adoption is very low and you still see people complaining about ads on Youtube all the time. For me, this is similar to why I won't pay for the New York Times subscription, either. I mainly only do stuff on both sites when I find a link to their site. I don't go to their site to do stuff on my own. Why would I subscribe to a site that I don't go to on my own? I do subscribe to ArsTechnica, for example, because I go there frequently. Furthermore, I might not mind ads, but the ads on YouTube are very obnoxious. There's no intelligence, so you get weird situations like watching a 2 minute ad before being able to watch a 30 second video. Or ads cutting off the speaker mid word. Who thinks that's a good experience? If they can't get that stuff right, why would I pay them? And on top of that, I find YouTube's "Hey did you know you can pay us money now?!?!?!" pop-ups all over the page to be obnoxious enough that I have decided I will never pay them any money. Were I a regular visitor who wasn't so off-put by their ham-fisted advertising, I might have considered it, but now they've made going to their site so unpleasant I just avoid it if I can, or hold my nose for a few minutes when watching something with ads. Then I get away from their site as quickly as possible.
hashkb 6y ago
Many users felt locked in to FB / like it was a vital part of their life for quite a while before it became an advertising platform. It's only attractive to advertisers if it's a good product for users. They pioneered the business model of selling users out, and in general users think that's gross.

thetanil 6y ago

This makes it sound like FB has done something to improve the tool for the users.