3 ms·
Leaving aside the morality, one huge objection to this level of targeting granularity is that it’s just bad business. Obviously a gross oversimplification, but
by benreesman 5y ago
Leaving aside the morality, one huge objection to this level of targeting granularity is that it’s just bad business.
Obviously a gross oversimplification, but to a first approximation ads ranking, pacing, and auction drive ads revenue. Ads targeting drives careers, at least at FB at least as of a few years ago.
The creepy factor does way more damage to FB’s business than the bells and whistles that the buyers of inventory use adds to it.
When something happens on Google, people feel like it happened in their living room. When something happens on FB, people feel like it happened in their bedroom.
- pixelgeek 5y ago> The creepy factor does way more damage to FB’s business than the bells and whistles that the buyers of inventory use adds to it. They helped to create a genocide in Burma. If people didn't leave after that then I doubt any "creep factor" is going to hurt their business.
- Nextgrid 5y agoFacebook and other ad platforms are just milking the cash cow as much as possible until it is not no longer possible because of regulation. However, regardless of privacy laws and other issues with advertising, this particular kind of abuse could be prevented by displaying how many people fall into that ad's targeting criteria and how much this advertiser has spent in the last year. Legitimate ads will typically target a large amount of people and would've spent significant amounts, where as "gaslighting" ads like these would typically reach very few people and the advertiser would've spent a relatively low amount in comparison.
- Hokusai 5y ago> The creepy factor does way more damage to FB’s business than the bells and whistles that the buyers of inventory use adds to it. Facebook incited a genocide in Myanmar. PR is not in their list of worries.