7 ms·

Sorry, that's still attempting to justify the unjustifiable. The only ethical way of targeting is content relevance, which allows inference of the audience inte

Sorry, that's still attempting to justify the unjustifiable. The only ethical way of targeting is content relevance, which allows inference of the audience interest without using any audience data other than what they're currently looking at.

jefftk 5y ago
> The only ethical way of targeting is content relevance Why?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Targeting based on content fundemenally allows everyone access to ad content. It makes content providers more responsible for the Ads they carry. It allows me to avoid sites that show me bad Ads (such as mail order brides). Targeting Ads based on anything else is invasive, discriminatory, and enables even higher levels of manipulation. If I get targeted by content independent targeted ads, it can be almsot impossible to avoid those Ads as they will follow you everywhere you go.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Speak for yourself. Instagram gives me fantastically targeted ads, and I appreciate that.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I'm glad you aren't vulnerable to any of the above issues I raise. That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerable and powerless people who are being hurt by this system and your support o it.
      - fastball 5y ago
        Removing personal responsibility from people is in itself a source of many social ills. For example think about how much better society could've been over the past decades if, instead of saying "people can't reasonably make decisions about [insert drug here] so we're going to illegalize all of them" we'd said "wow, adults can make decisions for themselves".
        shkkmo 5y ago
        Personal responsibility is not an excuse for disregarding the suffering of others. The war on drugs was a fundementally bad approach to fixing the problem. If it had worked and drug use had dropped near zero over a decade or two, you wouldn't see the current level of support for ending it. There are other cases where removing personal choice is not controversial (such as seat belt laws, incarceration, In fact, the failure of the war on drugs is an argument against relying purely on personal responsibility to solve the problem. Simply punishing people and expecting them to learn enough about the consequences of drug use to make the responsibile decision to stay away failed. It turns out that sometimes to get people to a place where they can take full personal responsibility, it requires giving them some help. We should strive to avoid removing personal responsibility and choice. The better job we do of providing the tools and support needed to make good decisions (i.e. ones the deciser will look back on without regret), the more respsibility we can easily allow. For examole: If we do a good job of protecting amd treating gambling addicts, that facilitates opening up gambling to more people in more locations.
        fastball 5y ago
        That's... exactly my point? Your original comments were that you wanted to outlaw certain types of ads entirely, war-on-drugs style. Not "take care of people who might be adversely affected by certain types of ads", but rather "these ads shouldn't exist", even if (from the broader perspective) that approach could cause more harm than good.
        shkkmo 5y ago
        I see no harm in banning advertising based on personal information (at least without explicit consent) and a lot of good that would result. This isn't about banning any type of ad, this is about removing a destructive way of targeting ads.
        fastball 5y ago
        1. As previously noted, I find ads targeted based on my personal information useful, when done well. The harm is that ads become less relevant to me (and others). If I have to see ads anyway, I would prefer them to be as relevant as possible. 2. Banning ads targeted on personal info makes advertising a less effective/lucrative funding method for free services. This in turn increases the likelihood that such services will have to move to more regressive funding models, like subscriptions.
  - qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
    "Targeting based on content fundemenally allows everyone access to ad content." Can you be more precise about what you mean and why the current system doesn't have it? You're saying that everyone should see ads, even ads they won't like? Forgive me if this isn't a hill I'm interested in dying on. "It makes content providers more responsible for the Ads they carry. It allows me to avoid sites that show me bad Ads (such as mail order brides)." Not in a meaningful way. If the ads are generated automatically based on the content, the site might not have much to do with it. Example: Suppose there's a wedding planning site, and a content-based targeting system notices the word "bride" on the site a lot and serves mail order bride ads. Yes, you could avoid the wedding planning site because of this, but is there any reason to punish them? It's not their fault. "If I get targeted by content independent targeted ads, it can be almsot impossible to avoid those Ads as they will follow you everywhere you go." Isn't there a menu that lets you select "I don't want to see this ad"?
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      You can't simulatously argue that Ads offer value to customers and that limiting access to those Ads to a certain subset of customers doesn't harm them. You have to pick one. There are specific areas (housing discrimination) where the harm is obvious enough that we have been able to gather sufficient support to make this illegal. > Yes, you could avoid the wedding planning site because of this, but is there any reason to punish them? It's not their fault. It is absolutely their fault. Content providers should face full responsibility for the Ads they allow to appear on their website. One of the ways that the current Ad targeting system is awful is that it allows advertisers to pretend to foist this responsibility onto Ad companies that are much more insulated from consumer blow back. > Isn't there a menu that lets you select "I don't want to see this ad"? Those menus often don't stop other Ads of that type from being shown and there is no legal obligation to do so. All they really do is give the advertiser more information about you. If the only recourse you have to abusive behavior is to politely ask them to stop, someone is going to keep abusing you to make money.

jefftk 5y ago

> The only ethical way of targeting is content relevance Why?

shkkmo 5y ago
Targeting based on content fundemenally allows everyone access to ad content. It makes content providers more responsible for the Ads they carry. It allows me to avoid sites that show me bad Ads (such as mail order brides). Targeting Ads based on anything else is invasive, discriminatory, and enables even higher levels of manipulation. If I get targeted by content independent targeted ads, it can be almsot impossible to avoid those Ads as they will follow you everywhere you go.
- fastball 5y ago
  Speak for yourself. Instagram gives me fantastically targeted ads, and I appreciate that.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I'm glad you aren't vulnerable to any of the above issues I raise. That doesn't mean there aren't vulnerable and powerless people who are being hurt by this system and your support o it.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Removing personal responsibility from people is in itself a source of many social ills. For example think about how much better society could've been over the past decades if, instead of saying "people can't reasonably make decisions about [insert drug here] so we're going to illegalize all of them" we'd said "wow, adults can make decisions for themselves".
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        Personal responsibility is not an excuse for disregarding the suffering of others. The war on drugs was a fundementally bad approach to fixing the problem. If it had worked and drug use had dropped near zero over a decade or two, you wouldn't see the current level of support for ending it. There are other cases where removing personal choice is not controversial (such as seat belt laws, incarceration, In fact, the failure of the war on drugs is an argument against relying purely on personal responsibility to solve the problem. Simply punishing people and expecting them to learn enough about the consequences of drug use to make the responsibile decision to stay away failed. It turns out that sometimes to get people to a place where they can take full personal responsibility, it requires giving them some help. We should strive to avoid removing personal responsibility and choice. The better job we do of providing the tools and support needed to make good decisions (i.e. ones the deciser will look back on without regret), the more respsibility we can easily allow. For examole: If we do a good job of protecting amd treating gambling addicts, that facilitates opening up gambling to more people in more locations.
        fastball 5y ago
        That's... exactly my point? Your original comments were that you wanted to outlaw certain types of ads entirely, war-on-drugs style. Not "take care of people who might be adversely affected by certain types of ads", but rather "these ads shouldn't exist", even if (from the broader perspective) that approach could cause more harm than good.
        shkkmo 5y ago
        I see no harm in banning advertising based on personal information (at least without explicit consent) and a lot of good that would result. This isn't about banning any type of ad, this is about removing a destructive way of targeting ads.
        fastball 5y ago
        1. As previously noted, I find ads targeted based on my personal information useful, when done well. The harm is that ads become less relevant to me (and others). If I have to see ads anyway, I would prefer them to be as relevant as possible. 2. Banning ads targeted on personal info makes advertising a less effective/lucrative funding method for free services. This in turn increases the likelihood that such services will have to move to more regressive funding models, like subscriptions.
- qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
  "Targeting based on content fundemenally allows everyone access to ad content." Can you be more precise about what you mean and why the current system doesn't have it? You're saying that everyone should see ads, even ads they won't like? Forgive me if this isn't a hill I'm interested in dying on. "It makes content providers more responsible for the Ads they carry. It allows me to avoid sites that show me bad Ads (such as mail order brides)." Not in a meaningful way. If the ads are generated automatically based on the content, the site might not have much to do with it. Example: Suppose there's a wedding planning site, and a content-based targeting system notices the word "bride" on the site a lot and serves mail order bride ads. Yes, you could avoid the wedding planning site because of this, but is there any reason to punish them? It's not their fault. "If I get targeted by content independent targeted ads, it can be almsot impossible to avoid those Ads as they will follow you everywhere you go." Isn't there a menu that lets you select "I don't want to see this ad"?
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    You can't simulatously argue that Ads offer value to customers and that limiting access to those Ads to a certain subset of customers doesn't harm them. You have to pick one. There are specific areas (housing discrimination) where the harm is obvious enough that we have been able to gather sufficient support to make this illegal. > Yes, you could avoid the wedding planning site because of this, but is there any reason to punish them? It's not their fault. It is absolutely their fault. Content providers should face full responsibility for the Ads they allow to appear on their website. One of the ways that the current Ad targeting system is awful is that it allows advertisers to pretend to foist this responsibility onto Ad companies that are much more insulated from consumer blow back. > Isn't there a menu that lets you select "I don't want to see this ad"? Those menus often don't stop other Ads of that type from being shown and there is no legal obligation to do so. All they really do is give the advertiser more information about you. If the only recourse you have to abusive behavior is to politely ask them to stop, someone is going to keep abusing you to make money.