6 ms·

This is a perfect example of why end-users shouldn't buy into the idea that all of this invasive tracking is getting them better/ more relevant advertising. Tha

This is a perfect example of why end-users shouldn't buy into the idea that all of this invasive tracking is getting them better/ more relevant advertising. That Google and Facebook were able to pedal this lie for so long and so effectively is the biggest scam of modern times.

leesalminen 6y ago
My anecdote is that Facebook got really good at targeting ads at me. Once I actually purchased 4 things from FB ads in a short time, I realized I had to quit. Going on 2 years now FB free!
- jonplackett 6y ago
  Do you regret those purchases?
  - codefreakxff 6y ago
    Not original poster. Also got ads for things I would definitely like. 100% of them were cheap crap that actually did not work at all. Stopped using Facebook because I got tired of the deceptive ads, lack of accountability, and invasive profiling And, yes, I do think Facebook should take responsibility for the content of their ads and products sold through them. If the New York Times only sold ads for scams, and all their articles were lies, we would no longer trust the New York Times Facebook is like Vegas strip junk ads. It may look nice, but you’re going to have a bad time
    - walrus01 6y ago
      there's whole facebook groups now dedicated to posting screenshots of, and laughing at, the ridiculous advertisements and products sold by wish.com
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        The funny thing about this is that those groups and the people in them, look at the wish ads, and engage with them, thus making wish's ads cheaper and making the company more likely to serve them bizarre ads.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tehlike 6y ago
Lie & scam - big words. Ads/marketing budgets create employment that would otherwise not be there. Ads provide monetization for apps you use on your phone. Without monetization you wouldn't have the proliferation of the ads, and not everyone is willing to pay directly. It creates jobs, supports businesses, helps otherwise unsustainable content. It helps the small businesses grow their market. It supports economy. You are also sort of missing the point. We are trying to make ads relavant for everyone, but even if it's relavant, you don't click on everything you see. This is true because of how you as a person do things. You don't buy the first car you see on the street, you do research, you spend days etc. Just think of that, and you'll see why why 1% ctr is actually not a terrible thing as you made it sound like. if you clicked on everything you see, you wouldn't be able to do _anything_. Disclaimer: Current FB and ex-Google employee working on ads for 8 years. And no, my pay doesn't depend on me saying these, i could just work _anywhere_ i wanted, literally.
- semi-extrinsic 6y ago
  I'm sorry, but whenever I'm looking for a new app to do something, it's consistently either the "hobbyist-made, free because ideology" apps, or the "made by $bigcorp, costs $5 but no ads" apps that actually are useful and good. That, and the seemingly utter stupidity of ad engines. Like, yes I bought that new power tool last week. Stop showing me the ad for the tool from the same store I already bought it from. I'm pretty much convinced that apart from the people working in the ad business, nobody actually profits off ads. Certainly it's close to impossible to prove that ads are effective, and people who sell ads to companies are good at cherry picking and suggestive correlations. Then in the end everyone tries to buy the same eyeballs by paying the same ad companies, and it all averages out to nothing except you spent a bunch of money.
  - tehlike 6y ago
    It's fairly easy to prove. Businesses are not dumb. Why would they throw their money on advertising otherwise?
    - egsmi 6y ago
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Well, people always have examples of fail cases. My friend at Amazon was dealing with the problem of black socks being tagged as DSLR cameras. It would have been too soon to close the curtains on ML just because that's obviously wrong. Same with bogus results in Google search. It would be a mistake to fixate on a fail case at the expense of seeing what it gets right. One thing that can be said about Amazon is how data-driven it is. Even an obvious "improvement" to a system would require analysis to back it up as an improvement. For example, it might seem obvious to filter out lower quality user-created answers in the product FAQ, but answers with poor grammar might actually boost sales because shoppers trust the answer more. Also, as we descend deeper into ML/AI and black boxes, the deeper we get into effects from afar. There's no real place to write if (user.sex == M) then weigh('tampons', -1) as it was a constellation of factors that cascaded into a man seeing tampons like that time he purchased something related for his girlfriend. The next rung in line is the business of mind-reading.
- Boxxed 6y ago
  I still hate how I'll buy something that is clearly an expensive one time purchase from amazon (such as a lawnmower or an audio receiver) and the best its dumb algorithm can come up with is, "Hey, wanna buy another lawnmower?"
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
    They might be weighting by E(rev|ad_shown) in which case you'd only need a very small amount of repeat users to make it worthwhile to show it to everyone. Not that that justifies the practice.
  - sidkshatriya 6y ago
    Actually this recommendation makes a lot of sense. You generally have 30 days to return your purchase, no questions asked. The algorithm knows that you're now quite likely to buy another lawnmower/audio receiver. Perhaps there is a fat chance you may even spend more the second time over (after returning your previous purchase)?
OscarTheGrinch 6y ago
The government should legislate that all tracking is off by default. If it is such a good deal we could opt into it. Facebook and Google would have to innovate instead of rent seek.

leesalminen 6y ago

My anecdote is that Facebook got really good at targeting ads at me. Once I actually purchased 4 things from FB ads in a short time, I realized I had to quit. Going on 2 years now FB free!

jonplackett 6y ago
Do you regret those purchases?
- codefreakxff 6y ago
  Not original poster. Also got ads for things I would definitely like. 100% of them were cheap crap that actually did not work at all. Stopped using Facebook because I got tired of the deceptive ads, lack of accountability, and invasive profiling And, yes, I do think Facebook should take responsibility for the content of their ads and products sold through them. If the New York Times only sold ads for scams, and all their articles were lies, we would no longer trust the New York Times Facebook is like Vegas strip junk ads. It may look nice, but you’re going to have a bad time
  - walrus01 6y ago
    there's whole facebook groups now dedicated to posting screenshots of, and laughing at, the ridiculous advertisements and products sold by wish.com
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      The funny thing about this is that those groups and the people in them, look at the wish ads, and engage with them, thus making wish's ads cheaper and making the company more likely to serve them bizarre ads.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tehlike 6y ago

Lie & scam - big words. Ads/marketing budgets create employment that would otherwise not be there. Ads provide monetization for apps you use on your phone. Without monetization you wouldn't have the proliferation of the ads, and not everyone is willing to pay directly. It creates jobs, supports businesses, helps otherwise unsustainable content. It helps the small businesses grow their market. It supports economy. You are also sort of missing the point. We are trying to make ads relavant for everyone, but even if it's relavant, you don't click on everything you see. This is true because of how you as a person do things. You don't buy the first car you see on the street, you do research, you spend days etc. Just think of that, and you'll see why why 1% ctr is actually not a terrible thing as you made it sound like. if you clicked on everything you see, you wouldn't be able to do _anything_. Disclaimer: Current FB and ex-Google employee working on ads for 8 years. And no, my pay doesn't depend on me saying these, i could just work _anywhere_ i wanted, literally.

semi-extrinsic 6y ago
I'm sorry, but whenever I'm looking for a new app to do something, it's consistently either the "hobbyist-made, free because ideology" apps, or the "made by $bigcorp, costs $5 but no ads" apps that actually are useful and good. That, and the seemingly utter stupidity of ad engines. Like, yes I bought that new power tool last week. Stop showing me the ad for the tool from the same store I already bought it from. I'm pretty much convinced that apart from the people working in the ad business, nobody actually profits off ads. Certainly it's close to impossible to prove that ads are effective, and people who sell ads to companies are good at cherry picking and suggestive correlations. Then in the end everyone tries to buy the same eyeballs by paying the same ad companies, and it all averages out to nothing except you spent a bunch of money.
- tehlike 6y ago
  It's fairly easy to prove. Businesses are not dumb. Why would they throw their money on advertising otherwise?
  - egsmi 6y ago

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Well, people always have examples of fail cases. My friend at Amazon was dealing with the problem of black socks being tagged as DSLR cameras. It would have been too soon to close the curtains on ML just because that's obviously wrong. Same with bogus results in Google search. It would be a mistake to fixate on a fail case at the expense of seeing what it gets right. One thing that can be said about Amazon is how data-driven it is. Even an obvious "improvement" to a system would require analysis to back it up as an improvement. For example, it might seem obvious to filter out lower quality user-created answers in the product FAQ, but answers with poor grammar might actually boost sales because shoppers trust the answer more. Also, as we descend deeper into ML/AI and black boxes, the deeper we get into effects from afar. There's no real place to write if (user.sex == M) then weigh('tampons', -1) as it was a constellation of factors that cascaded into a man seeing tampons like that time he purchased something related for his girlfriend. The next rung in line is the business of mind-reading.

Boxxed 6y ago
I still hate how I'll buy something that is clearly an expensive one time purchase from amazon (such as a lawnmower or an audio receiver) and the best its dumb algorithm can come up with is, "Hey, wanna buy another lawnmower?"
- X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
  They might be weighting by E(rev|ad_shown) in which case you'd only need a very small amount of repeat users to make it worthwhile to show it to everyone. Not that that justifies the practice.
- sidkshatriya 6y ago
  Actually this recommendation makes a lot of sense. You generally have 30 days to return your purchase, no questions asked. The algorithm knows that you're now quite likely to buy another lawnmower/audio receiver. Perhaps there is a fat chance you may even spend more the second time over (after returning your previous purchase)?

OscarTheGrinch 6y ago

The government should legislate that all tracking is off by default. If it is such a good deal we could opt into it. Facebook and Google would have to innovate instead of rent seek.