9 ms·

For uninteresting reasons, I had to wipe settings on my iPhone this weekend, which meant re-approving everything, including the do not track setting mentioned h

For uninteresting reasons, I had to wipe settings on my iPhone this weekend, which meant re-approving everything, including the do not track setting mentioned here. When 14.5 came out, I updated faster than apps like Instagram could, so I missed their "please approve" screens that I got to see now. It's not strange to see an app explain why it is about to prompt for permission to do something, but posing for better personalization in the ads I'm going to see anyway really didn't land with me. I fully admit that I was never going to approve this setting, but I still find it surprising that they think I would be happier with more specific ads. Does that work for some folks? I guess I can understand that if I have to see ads at all, may as well make them personalized, but I'd still rather not see ads, to the point of blocking them when possible.

peterhi 5y ago
I've never found a benefit in "Personalized ads" because they have never been something that I am interested in, it seems to really mean "we can charge the brands more for this ad". There is a ton of stuff I would willingly pay for but it never seems to be what people want to advertise to me
- lanstin 5y ago
  This was always true for me until recently the Instagram ads (I use Instagram to see what my kids and their friends are up to). Those ads are all very much in the sweet spot of my weaknesses. Haven’t bought from them, but I still watch more than halfway in fascination before I realize consciously what has happened.
- _game_of_life 5y ago
  I opt into personalization and am constantly getting ads for tampons (not a woman), essential oils (yuck), iced tea (I only drink water), chinese clothing (lol), and then sporadically... 100k+ metal 3d printers and other industrial engineering equipment. I am a disabled, unemployed student. I also have serious doubts that "personalized" ads even really exist. It's like they're trying to show me the least applicable products to my life.
superjan 5y ago
No, but it’s the best argument they can make to make it sound like it’s advantageous to you.
anamexis 5y ago
All else being the same, I would prefer to see personalized ads over not. It's not worth the incursion of privacy to me, but that said, I'd prefer to see ads for, say, clothes I might wear rather than perfume or prescription medicine.
- Terretta 5y ago
  Do you read articles or visit sites having to do with clothes? What about perfume or meds? Context adjacent ads have worked fine on TV and in magazines for quite a long time. NYT claimed their ad revenue went up by getting back to that.
  - anamexis 5y ago
    No, not really. My only point was that in a vacuum, if I have to see ads, I would prefer to see ads that are relevant to me over seeing ads that are irrelevant to me. I do NOT think that this justifies the invasion of privacy, and I block trackers (and ads in general) whenever possible.
malka 5y ago
I am more interested in LESS relevant ad. They will be less succesful at manipulating me.
baby 5y ago
It’s interesting because I believe everyone would choose to see personalized ads if asked. But the wording Apple employs is “the app is asking to _track_ you”, which is negative wording and thus has no chance of being accepted. They pretty much turned off the feature but made it look like the user still had a choice.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  Er but that’s the truth, no? And if the truth is damning for Facebook and Instagram and Google, well that’s what those companies chose as their business model
- f1refly 5y ago
  It's interesting you believe that, because every pc or laptop I helped anyone who asked me for advice buy had its native microsoft ad targeting turned off by the respective buyer during setup. People understand that "personalized ads" means "allow us to stalk your every move to try and coerce you into buying garbage you don't need". This is for m$ windows 10, so the wording is as abusive and deceptive as possible, not as plain as apples.
fpgaminer 5y ago
> I guess I can understand that if I have to see ads at all, may as well make them personalized I think this is the greatest lie the ad industry has foisted on us, and unfortunately I see a lot of people fall for it. We hear the word "personalized" and we think "relevant" or "interesting". That if you _have_ to see an ad, at least let it be one that tickles your fancy. Yet interesting and relevant is _not_ what ad tech is optimizing for. Rather, ads are optimized for _conversion_; the likelihood that a user will be converted into a "sale" (where "sale" can range from simply clicking the ad, to buying a product, to subscribing to a service, etc. Whatever is most important to the ad buyer and measurable.) Optimizing for conversion is _not_ the same as optimizing for being relevant or interesting. Instead these ads are being optimized to exploit whatever weaknesses you, the targeted user, may have. How can they _trick_ you into converting. It's the same problem we see with social media. Social media companies optimize for engagement, which means they get filled with the baser human emotions in ways that get people addicted, regardless of its cost to the user or society as a whole. Ad tech is doing the same thing, and in many ways "engagement" is synonymous with "conversion". Ad buyers are paying ad markets to do absolutely whatever it takes to engage a user in the ad buyer's desired activity. Come hell or high water, those ad markets will convert you and they will consume as much data and processing power as necessary to find a way to do that. All this to say that ad tracking is not about making ads more interesting to a user, more palatable, like many seem to believe. It's about using _your_ personal data to _manipulate_ you. Ad tracking is finding ways to tailor a drug to the specific user to maximize the seller's profit.
- kstrauser 5y ago
  I’d much rather have unpersonalized ads, because then I won’t be tempted to buy yet more stuff I don’t need. I might get suckered into picking up some new widget that I’ll play with once and then forget about. There’s zero chance I’d get talked into buying, say, a box of tampons. If you substitute “predatory” for “personalized” whenever the subject comes up, it better represents my thoughts.
  - malshe 5y ago
    +1 This is pretty much how I feel too.
poundofshrimp 5y ago
To folks that are complaining of being manipulated, I always felt that if you can be coerced into impulse-buying something voluntarily, and then regretting the purchase, there is probably not anyone to blame but yourself. Putting aside the existence of ads for a minute (I hate ads too), why do you feel that voluntarily purchasing something based on an ad is “manipulation”? If you resent such purchase afterwards, seems to imply you made a bad decision (rather than anyone manipulated you). EDIT: care to elaborate the downvotes?
- lanstin 5y ago
  Many humans struggle to stay on the path of activity that their best rationality and knowledge of a fulfilling life recommends. If you ever stay up too late, drink too much, struggle with a bad relationship or smoking or you know too much Free Flow, you have to chance to be aware of some of the weaknesses in our nervous systems. Perhaps you are so far away from the human norms that you don’t find anything tempting that is not also beneficial, but is it quite common I promise you.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Homo economicus. Man may be a free agent on paper but most decisions we make are driven by easily hijacked heuristics.
- kstrauser 5y ago
  There are literally psychologists working to use our brain’s design to their benefit. It’s not entirely fair to criticize someone for being manipulated by highly trained experts who labor to manipulate them.
  - poundofshrimp 5y ago
    As someone who was in the past a salesperson, I don't see how data-hungry digital advertisement is fundamentally different from old and tried sales methods. Salespeople would kill to know as much as possible about their prospects including their personal life, so that they can appeal to basic human emotions. I mean, this is literally how sales are made. The difference is that in online ads this part of the process is automated with algorithms, which apparently rubs some people the wrong way. If you are repulsed by sales as an activity, I can see how you'd arrive at the "manipulation" point of view. However, I would much prefer this type of "manipulation" to being hard sold in a car dealership, for example, or having to endure cold calls from strangers. Undesired synchronous sales interactions are much more emotionally draining than seeing computer-generated ads online, IMHO.
tomjen3 5y ago
I would prefer more specific ads. Maybe they will finally show something worthwhile? I mean I am not holding my breath, despite all their tracking facebook can't show me relevant ads and google kept showing me ads for things I was interested in (I have since changed to DDG).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

peterhi 5y ago

I've never found a benefit in "Personalized ads" because they have never been something that I am interested in, it seems to really mean "we can charge the brands more for this ad". There is a ton of stuff I would willingly pay for but it never seems to be what people want to advertise to me

lanstin 5y ago
This was always true for me until recently the Instagram ads (I use Instagram to see what my kids and their friends are up to). Those ads are all very much in the sweet spot of my weaknesses. Haven’t bought from them, but I still watch more than halfway in fascination before I realize consciously what has happened.
_game_of_life 5y ago
I opt into personalization and am constantly getting ads for tampons (not a woman), essential oils (yuck), iced tea (I only drink water), chinese clothing (lol), and then sporadically... 100k+ metal 3d printers and other industrial engineering equipment. I am a disabled, unemployed student. I also have serious doubts that "personalized" ads even really exist. It's like they're trying to show me the least applicable products to my life.

superjan 5y ago

No, but it’s the best argument they can make to make it sound like it’s advantageous to you.

anamexis 5y ago

All else being the same, I would prefer to see personalized ads over not. It's not worth the incursion of privacy to me, but that said, I'd prefer to see ads for, say, clothes I might wear rather than perfume or prescription medicine.

Terretta 5y ago
Do you read articles or visit sites having to do with clothes? What about perfume or meds? Context adjacent ads have worked fine on TV and in magazines for quite a long time. NYT claimed their ad revenue went up by getting back to that.
- anamexis 5y ago
  No, not really. My only point was that in a vacuum, if I have to see ads, I would prefer to see ads that are relevant to me over seeing ads that are irrelevant to me. I do NOT think that this justifies the invasion of privacy, and I block trackers (and ads in general) whenever possible.

malka 5y ago

I am more interested in LESS relevant ad. They will be less succesful at manipulating me.

baby 5y ago

It’s interesting because I believe everyone would choose to see personalized ads if asked. But the wording Apple employs is “the app is asking to _track_ you”, which is negative wording and thus has no chance of being accepted. They pretty much turned off the feature but made it look like the user still had a choice.

Ar-Curunir 5y ago
Er but that’s the truth, no? And if the truth is damning for Facebook and Instagram and Google, well that’s what those companies chose as their business model
f1refly 5y ago
It's interesting you believe that, because every pc or laptop I helped anyone who asked me for advice buy had its native microsoft ad targeting turned off by the respective buyer during setup. People understand that "personalized ads" means "allow us to stalk your every move to try and coerce you into buying garbage you don't need". This is for m$ windows 10, so the wording is as abusive and deceptive as possible, not as plain as apples.

fpgaminer 5y ago

> I guess I can understand that if I have to see ads at all, may as well make them personalized I think this is the greatest lie the ad industry has foisted on us, and unfortunately I see a lot of people fall for it. We hear the word "personalized" and we think "relevant" or "interesting". That if you _have_ to see an ad, at least let it be one that tickles your fancy. Yet interesting and relevant is _not_ what ad tech is optimizing for. Rather, ads are optimized for _conversion_; the likelihood that a user will be converted into a "sale" (where "sale" can range from simply clicking the ad, to buying a product, to subscribing to a service, etc. Whatever is most important to the ad buyer and measurable.) Optimizing for conversion is _not_ the same as optimizing for being relevant or interesting. Instead these ads are being optimized to exploit whatever weaknesses you, the targeted user, may have. How can they _trick_ you into converting. It's the same problem we see with social media. Social media companies optimize for engagement, which means they get filled with the baser human emotions in ways that get people addicted, regardless of its cost to the user or society as a whole. Ad tech is doing the same thing, and in many ways "engagement" is synonymous with "conversion". Ad buyers are paying ad markets to do absolutely whatever it takes to engage a user in the ad buyer's desired activity. Come hell or high water, those ad markets will convert you and they will consume as much data and processing power as necessary to find a way to do that. All this to say that ad tracking is not about making ads more interesting to a user, more palatable, like many seem to believe. It's about using _your_ personal data to _manipulate_ you. Ad tracking is finding ways to tailor a drug to the specific user to maximize the seller's profit.

kstrauser 5y ago
I’d much rather have unpersonalized ads, because then I won’t be tempted to buy yet more stuff I don’t need. I might get suckered into picking up some new widget that I’ll play with once and then forget about. There’s zero chance I’d get talked into buying, say, a box of tampons. If you substitute “predatory” for “personalized” whenever the subject comes up, it better represents my thoughts.
- malshe 5y ago
  +1 This is pretty much how I feel too.

poundofshrimp 5y ago

To folks that are complaining of being manipulated, I always felt that if you can be coerced into impulse-buying something voluntarily, and then regretting the purchase, there is probably not anyone to blame but yourself. Putting aside the existence of ads for a minute (I hate ads too), why do you feel that voluntarily purchasing something based on an ad is “manipulation”? If you resent such purchase afterwards, seems to imply you made a bad decision (rather than anyone manipulated you). EDIT: care to elaborate the downvotes?

lanstin 5y ago
Many humans struggle to stay on the path of activity that their best rationality and knowledge of a fulfilling life recommends. If you ever stay up too late, drink too much, struggle with a bad relationship or smoking or you know too much Free Flow, you have to chance to be aware of some of the weaknesses in our nervous systems. Perhaps you are so far away from the human norms that you don’t find anything tempting that is not also beneficial, but is it quite common I promise you.
vorpalhex 5y ago
Homo economicus. Man may be a free agent on paper but most decisions we make are driven by easily hijacked heuristics.
kstrauser 5y ago
There are literally psychologists working to use our brain’s design to their benefit. It’s not entirely fair to criticize someone for being manipulated by highly trained experts who labor to manipulate them.
- poundofshrimp 5y ago
  As someone who was in the past a salesperson, I don't see how data-hungry digital advertisement is fundamentally different from old and tried sales methods. Salespeople would kill to know as much as possible about their prospects including their personal life, so that they can appeal to basic human emotions. I mean, this is literally how sales are made. The difference is that in online ads this part of the process is automated with algorithms, which apparently rubs some people the wrong way. If you are repulsed by sales as an activity, I can see how you'd arrive at the "manipulation" point of view. However, I would much prefer this type of "manipulation" to being hard sold in a car dealership, for example, or having to endure cold calls from strangers. Undesired synchronous sales interactions are much more emotionally draining than seeing computer-generated ads online, IMHO.

tomjen3 5y ago

I would prefer more specific ads. Maybe they will finally show something worthwhile? I mean I am not holding my breath, despite all their tracking facebook can't show me relevant ads and google kept showing me ads for things I was interested in (I have since changed to DDG).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]