2 ms·

"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

"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.

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.