5 ms·

Why do you want to disable it? Isn't it nice to see ads that are interesting and useful to you rather than looking at some useless ads you're not interested in?

by hkai 5y ago

chaosite 5y ago
Seeing ads isn't nice.
Spivak 5y ago
The issue is buried in the premise of the question. “If you’re going to see an ad regardless, would you rather it be relevant to you or not?” The answer is and always has been “I don’t want to see an ad in the first place, I don’t want you collecting any information about me under any circumstances, and anything that makes ads spots worth less is a positive.” You know the cheeky “you won’t see fewer ads, they’ll just be leas relevant” line? The only long term solution to actually see fewer ads is to drive their value down to nothing. The fact that you can pay to remove ads on a lot of services kinda gives the game away that they’re a net negative. Why would you ever want them gone if they’re so useful and helpful? AdTech is such a garbage industry — drunk on their own delusions of facilitating commerce and helping businesses reach customers while being so annoying and vile that the only way their products to function is to insert themselves into every facet of life because nobody would ever seek them out on their own. Bleh.
- doomslice 5y ago
  There's two sides to the equation though (I work on Supply Side ad tech). There's a huge amount of content that people are just not willing to pay for, but would gladly view ads. You may be willing to pay for Youtube Premium and Twitch Plus or whatever, but the vast majority of people do not. Do I feel like I'm a horrible person because I help make websites more money so they can stay in business? Heck no. It's the only reason 90% of these sites are able to exist in the first place.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    I feel like gladly is overstating it a bit but I take your point. Users will put up with ads with a lot less resistance than a paywall. But that logic still doesn't really follow unless you think that businesses making money by literally any means they can get away with is an end unto itself. If you have a service like YouTube that provides so much value and is such an economic multuplier that we can't possibly imagine society existing without it then why don't we just pay for it? The fact that we have no system to fund public goods that aren't ads and taxes is a huge failing. You're basically just describing a tax system that is paid in consumerism which sucks because it's inherently regressive. If you have a product which is genuinely useful to hundreds of millions of people but that the value only materializes when it's available for 'free' to everyone then we should have ways of getting you funded that isn't attention or convincing individuals to pay you a subscription fee. You're hitting on an important economic function that ads are currently doing but then twisting it around and saying that there's possibility for anything but ads to perform that function.
    - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
      >You're basically just describing a tax system that is paid in consumerism which sucks because it's inherently regressive. Why is it regressive? High earners pay more for ad-funded sites than low earners. That's not regressive. It's not progressive either, strictly speaking, but it's better than subscription fees which are regressive because everyone pays the same absolute price regardless of their disposable income.
      - danShumway 5y ago
        > High earners pay more for ad-funded sites than low earners. I'm not certain this is true. And targeted advertising certainly makes it less true, not more. Advertisers are not excluding low-income users from advertising, instead they're targeting more products at them that those users are more likely to buy. Untargeted ads for higher-cost luxury products might make the Internet cheaper for low-income users, but that's not what is happening in the ad industry right now. Ads exist to get you to spend money, and they are just as targeted at poor people as they are at rich people. I wouldn't be that surprised if the effect is the opposite, since poor people have less access to research resources, comparison shops, and trials that would allow them to combat the psychological effects of advertising. They're also generally under a lot more stress and time-pressure when they shop than rich people are, which is likely to make them even more vulnerable to manipulation during a difficult purchase decision.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  "Why would you ever want them gone if they’re so useful and helpful?" Good point. Netflix replaced cable for a reason. People can stomach ads up to a point but I don't think anyone likes them.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  >The only long term solution to actually see fewer ads is to drive their value down to nothing You can only hope that whatever marketers would do instead to promote their stuff is less annoying or damaging. I have my doubts.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  Well said.
- hkai 5y ago
  Interesting point of view. Have you ever sold a product? I assume not, otherwise I can't imagine how you would conclude that ads don't contribute to sales and don't bring value to customers.
danShumway 5y ago
No, I don't want that, for multiple reasons: - I don't trust ad networks to give me more relevant ads, the data they currently have has not made my advertising experience better, so I don't see why giving them more data is going to fix the problem. I don't see strong evidence that advertisers know how to make useful ads regardless of how much data they have. - I don't trust ad networks to target responsibly for my benefit. Ad networks are trying to manipulate me into buying products, they are trying to affect how I view the world. That's a hostile relationship, they don't have my best interest in mind, so "more effective" is not necessarily going to translate to my benefit. Ad networks are not trying to make ads more useful to me, they are trying to get me to buy stuff. - I don't trust ad networks to only use tracking to improve relevance. I take it as a given that their tracking will be used for underhanded price changes, changes to UX to make it harder for me to complete certain actions, deal availability, geolocking, changing results when I comparison shop, and other anti-user practices. - I want to have control over what data goes into my advertising profiles. Tracking me everywhere forces me to treat my advertising profile like I would treat a cat -- I don't want to do reinforcement training on my ads. With tracking, if I want to be advertised a certain product, I have to reinforce to the network that I care about it. If someone sends me a link, I have to think before clicking on it because I don't know what that will signal to advertisers. This is a really awful way to interact with computers in general, and it discourages people from freely browsing the web. - Ad tracking creates an additional security risk for my data. I might get advertised an embarrassing product at the wrong time in front of the wrong person, that information might get leaked to other 3rd-parties that are somehow even less scrupulous than advertisers. There are multiple instances of ad networks effectively doxing people, outing their secrets. It's not safe to trust ad networks with that data. - Even if none of the above was true, I don't take it as a given that even at a purely conceptual level targeted advertising is better than untargeted advertising. I disagree with the philosophical premise behind that kind of marketing, I think that marketing should be user controlled and based on signals that users consciously give about what they want to see. I think in most cases that users should start the search for a new product themselves and decide what they want advertised to them. Even if the advertising industry was ethical (which to be clear, it's not), I still don't want targeted ads. - And even if I did want targeted ads, heck anyone who is tracking me for advertising purposes without my permission. If your product is so heckin great, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to get me to opt into tracking. The lack of affirmative consent is a problem, regardless of the outcome. You have to get people's permission before you do this stuff -- even if I'm happy with the result, that doesn't excuse you from asking my permission. And no, collecting the data anyway but just showing less relevant ads on the front end doesn't count. I don't want the tracking code on my computer at all unless I've invited it to be there. --- Now, completely separately from everything above, I also don't want to see ads at all and I think everyone should block them and burn the entire industry to the ground regardless of the consequences. BUT that is not the primary reason why I'm against fingerprinting and user tracking. Even if I loved ads, I still wouldn't be OK with the kind of tracking that tech companies are doing, and I still wouldn't want them to fingerprint me.

Why do you want to disable it? Isn't it nice to see ads that are interesting and useful to you rather than looking at some useless ads you're not interested in?

by hkai 5y ago

Why do you want to disable it? Isn't it nice to see ads that are interesting and useful to you rather than looking at some useless ads you're not interested in?

chaosite 5y ago

Seeing ads isn't nice.

Spivak 5y ago

The issue is buried in the premise of the question. “If you’re going to see an ad regardless, would you rather it be relevant to you or not?” The answer is and always has been “I don’t want to see an ad in the first place, I don’t want you collecting any information about me under any circumstances, and anything that makes ads spots worth less is a positive.” You know the cheeky “you won’t see fewer ads, they’ll just be leas relevant” line? The only long term solution to actually see fewer ads is to drive their value down to nothing. The fact that you can pay to remove ads on a lot of services kinda gives the game away that they’re a net negative. Why would you ever want them gone if they’re so useful and helpful? AdTech is such a garbage industry — drunk on their own delusions of facilitating commerce and helping businesses reach customers while being so annoying and vile that the only way their products to function is to insert themselves into every facet of life because nobody would ever seek them out on their own. Bleh.

doomslice 5y ago
There's two sides to the equation though (I work on Supply Side ad tech). There's a huge amount of content that people are just not willing to pay for, but would gladly view ads. You may be willing to pay for Youtube Premium and Twitch Plus or whatever, but the vast majority of people do not. Do I feel like I'm a horrible person because I help make websites more money so they can stay in business? Heck no. It's the only reason 90% of these sites are able to exist in the first place.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I feel like gladly is overstating it a bit but I take your point. Users will put up with ads with a lot less resistance than a paywall. But that logic still doesn't really follow unless you think that businesses making money by literally any means they can get away with is an end unto itself. If you have a service like YouTube that provides so much value and is such an economic multuplier that we can't possibly imagine society existing without it then why don't we just pay for it? The fact that we have no system to fund public goods that aren't ads and taxes is a huge failing. You're basically just describing a tax system that is paid in consumerism which sucks because it's inherently regressive. If you have a product which is genuinely useful to hundreds of millions of people but that the value only materializes when it's available for 'free' to everyone then we should have ways of getting you funded that isn't attention or convincing individuals to pay you a subscription fee. You're hitting on an important economic function that ads are currently doing but then twisting it around and saying that there's possibility for anything but ads to perform that function.
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
    >You're basically just describing a tax system that is paid in consumerism which sucks because it's inherently regressive. Why is it regressive? High earners pay more for ad-funded sites than low earners. That's not regressive. It's not progressive either, strictly speaking, but it's better than subscription fees which are regressive because everyone pays the same absolute price regardless of their disposable income.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      > High earners pay more for ad-funded sites than low earners. I'm not certain this is true. And targeted advertising certainly makes it less true, not more. Advertisers are not excluding low-income users from advertising, instead they're targeting more products at them that those users are more likely to buy. Untargeted ads for higher-cost luxury products might make the Internet cheaper for low-income users, but that's not what is happening in the ad industry right now. Ads exist to get you to spend money, and they are just as targeted at poor people as they are at rich people. I wouldn't be that surprised if the effect is the opposite, since poor people have less access to research resources, comparison shops, and trials that would allow them to combat the psychological effects of advertising. They're also generally under a lot more stress and time-pressure when they shop than rich people are, which is likely to make them even more vulnerable to manipulation during a difficult purchase decision.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
"Why would you ever want them gone if they’re so useful and helpful?" Good point. Netflix replaced cable for a reason. People can stomach ads up to a point but I don't think anyone likes them.
fauigerzigerk 5y ago
>The only long term solution to actually see fewer ads is to drive their value down to nothing You can only hope that whatever marketers would do instead to promote their stuff is less annoying or damaging. I have my doubts.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Well said.
hkai 5y ago
Interesting point of view. Have you ever sold a product? I assume not, otherwise I can't imagine how you would conclude that ads don't contribute to sales and don't bring value to customers.

danShumway 5y ago

No, I don't want that, for multiple reasons: - I don't trust ad networks to give me more relevant ads, the data they currently have has not made my advertising experience better, so I don't see why giving them more data is going to fix the problem. I don't see strong evidence that advertisers know how to make useful ads regardless of how much data they have. - I don't trust ad networks to target responsibly for my benefit. Ad networks are trying to manipulate me into buying products, they are trying to affect how I view the world. That's a hostile relationship, they don't have my best interest in mind, so "more effective" is not necessarily going to translate to my benefit. Ad networks are not trying to make ads more useful to me, they are trying to get me to buy stuff. - I don't trust ad networks to only use tracking to improve relevance. I take it as a given that their tracking will be used for underhanded price changes, changes to UX to make it harder for me to complete certain actions, deal availability, geolocking, changing results when I comparison shop, and other anti-user practices. - I want to have control over what data goes into my advertising profiles. Tracking me everywhere forces me to treat my advertising profile like I would treat a cat -- I don't want to do reinforcement training on my ads. With tracking, if I want to be advertised a certain product, I have to reinforce to the network that I care about it. If someone sends me a link, I have to think before clicking on it because I don't know what that will signal to advertisers. This is a really awful way to interact with computers in general, and it discourages people from freely browsing the web. - Ad tracking creates an additional security risk for my data. I might get advertised an embarrassing product at the wrong time in front of the wrong person, that information might get leaked to other 3rd-parties that are somehow even less scrupulous than advertisers. There are multiple instances of ad networks effectively doxing people, outing their secrets. It's not safe to trust ad networks with that data. - Even if none of the above was true, I don't take it as a given that even at a purely conceptual level targeted advertising is better than untargeted advertising. I disagree with the philosophical premise behind that kind of marketing, I think that marketing should be user controlled and based on signals that users consciously give about what they want to see. I think in most cases that users should start the search for a new product themselves and decide what they want advertised to them. Even if the advertising industry was ethical (which to be clear, it's not), I still don't want targeted ads. - And even if I did want targeted ads, heck anyone who is tracking me for advertising purposes without my permission. If your product is so heckin great, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to get me to opt into tracking. The lack of affirmative consent is a problem, regardless of the outcome. You have to get people's permission before you do this stuff -- even if I'm happy with the result, that doesn't excuse you from asking my permission. And no, collecting the data anyway but just showing less relevant ads on the front end doesn't count. I don't want the tracking code on my computer at all unless I've invited it to be there. --- Now, completely separately from everything above, I also don't want to see ads at all and I think everyone should block them and burn the entire industry to the ground regardless of the consequences. BUT that is not the primary reason why I'm against fingerprinting and user tracking. Even if I loved ads, I still wouldn't be OK with the kind of tracking that tech companies are doing, and I still wouldn't want them to fingerprint me.