6 ms·

All ads are a form of manipulation. I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown

All ads are a form of manipulation. I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Untargeted ads on the other hand would need to more manipulative to be equally effective. It seems the problem this site is really taking issue with is privacy.

rhizome 5y ago
>I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Except targeting works the same as recommendations, which is "not," so they might as well be untargeted banners just like in the 90s anyway.
- dsizzle 5y ago
  Ha, I feel like people assign higher competency to agents they fear (in an extreme case “the CIA is reading my mind”).
stirfish 5y ago
> I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Say a person has a long, rocky history with [gambling]. Showing them more ads for [casinos] than the average population is manipulative, no matter how catchy the contents of the ads are. Replace [gambling] with binge eating, depression, infertility, impulse shopping, violent extremism, or whatever else you'd like. A lot of things will fit.
- cm2012 5y ago
  I'm an ads person. Ads for casinos should be banned. But ads for therapy for gambling addicts sound fine. Ads are just a tool. If you don't like a certain industry being promoted, then crack down on that industry and its ads, not everyone.
  - Const-me 5y ago
    > ads for therapy for gambling addicts sound fine. Not sure about that. If I would be a gambler, I would find ads for that therapy rather annoying. A therapy with the only goal to take away from me something I like.
- dsizzle 5y ago
  Hm, that’s a good counterpoint. I guess it depends on the nature of the “good” (“bad”? Ha) being advertised too? But even here, there’s still the possibility for a better world with targeting, given good intentions of the targeting system (I know I know). Surely the best world isn’t one where casino ads are sent out blindly?
  - saghm 5y ago
    It sounds like the ideal world would be for users to be able to set certain filters on their ads rather than relying on the good intentions of the companies presenting the ads. I'm not sure exactly what this would look like in practice, though.
    - dsizzle 5y ago
      Right. I mean you can opt out of specific ads to some degree. For instance, when we were in the process of launching a site, but the ad account was using the "bottom of the barrel" setting and we kept getting those "manscaping" ads, which are pretty raunchy and were embarrassing to have on your computer in the office (especially when demoing to a client)! Disabling them one by one did eventually work. Related to this whole discussion, if you turn off ad targeting, you often get some garbage ads.
  - scubbo 5y ago
    It's a less common usage than "good", but "(economic) bad" is a valid noun for "anything with a negative value": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(economics). To address the core of your point - IMO, the best world is one in which neither casinos, nor anything else, are advertised. The harm done by manipulative advertising _vastly_ outweighs any benefits of finding out about something good that you would otherwise not have heard about. If someone has to pay to make me aware of something, and I wouldn't hear about it organically via recommendation or research, it's probably actually not that great. And even if it is - even if my absolutist stance means that I miss out on some truly great things that I would otherwise have found via advertising - I'd rather that outcome than being manipulated by corporations.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  You could also show them ads for rehab therapy.
  - stirfish 5y ago
    I know I'm drifting off topic, but a lot of commercial rehabs are basically insurance scams, at least in America. I'd argue those ads are both manipulative and harmful. Here's one story: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/01/metro/charges-filed-alleged-addiction-treatment-fraud-scheme/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/01/metro/charges-filed-a...
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      I just meant it as an example that you could theoretically show people beneficial ads. Maybe show ads for lawyers defending victims of fraudulent rehabs then.
saghm 5y ago
> Untargeted ads on the other hand would need to more manipulative to be equally effective. I think that point is that untargeted ads _are_ less effective; they can't be more manipulative precisely because they don't have knowledge about who they're being presented to, so they have to try to go for broad shallow appeal instead of deep and narrow.
- dsizzle 5y ago
  All else equal, sure, but wouldn't advertisers change the content and style of the ad knowing if it will be targeted or not? Can't broad and shallow be manipulative--"keeping up with Joneses"--while deep and narrow is purely informational?
  - saghm 5y ago
    If that was the case, why bother doing targeting at all? It costs a lot of time and money to gather all those adds, so if it wasn't better, there'd be no point
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    Why would an advertiser ever choose a “less manipulative” ad version because they know more about their potential client? “Good will” seems woefully idealistic.
    - dsizzle 5y ago
      Because people can sometimes detect when someone is trying to manipulate them (we're having this discussion after all), and it might backfire?

rhizome 5y ago

>I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Except targeting works the same as recommendations, which is "not," so they might as well be untargeted banners just like in the 90s anyway.

dsizzle 5y ago
Ha, I feel like people assign higher competency to agents they fear (in an extreme case “the CIA is reading my mind”).

stirfish 5y ago

> I can see a case that targeted ads are less manipulative to the extent it presents you ads for products you’ve already shown a propensity for. Say a person has a long, rocky history with [gambling]. Showing them more ads for [casinos] than the average population is manipulative, no matter how catchy the contents of the ads are. Replace [gambling] with binge eating, depression, infertility, impulse shopping, violent extremism, or whatever else you'd like. A lot of things will fit.

cm2012 5y ago
I'm an ads person. Ads for casinos should be banned. But ads for therapy for gambling addicts sound fine. Ads are just a tool. If you don't like a certain industry being promoted, then crack down on that industry and its ads, not everyone.
- Const-me 5y ago
  > ads for therapy for gambling addicts sound fine. Not sure about that. If I would be a gambler, I would find ads for that therapy rather annoying. A therapy with the only goal to take away from me something I like.
dsizzle 5y ago
Hm, that’s a good counterpoint. I guess it depends on the nature of the “good” (“bad”? Ha) being advertised too? But even here, there’s still the possibility for a better world with targeting, given good intentions of the targeting system (I know I know). Surely the best world isn’t one where casino ads are sent out blindly?
- saghm 5y ago
  It sounds like the ideal world would be for users to be able to set certain filters on their ads rather than relying on the good intentions of the companies presenting the ads. I'm not sure exactly what this would look like in practice, though.
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Right. I mean you can opt out of specific ads to some degree. For instance, when we were in the process of launching a site, but the ad account was using the "bottom of the barrel" setting and we kept getting those "manscaping" ads, which are pretty raunchy and were embarrassing to have on your computer in the office (especially when demoing to a client)! Disabling them one by one did eventually work. Related to this whole discussion, if you turn off ad targeting, you often get some garbage ads.
- scubbo 5y ago
  It's a less common usage than "good", but "(economic) bad" is a valid noun for "anything with a negative value": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_(economics). To address the core of your point - IMO, the best world is one in which neither casinos, nor anything else, are advertised. The harm done by manipulative advertising _vastly_ outweighs any benefits of finding out about something good that you would otherwise not have heard about. If someone has to pay to make me aware of something, and I wouldn't hear about it organically via recommendation or research, it's probably actually not that great. And even if it is - even if my absolutist stance means that I miss out on some truly great things that I would otherwise have found via advertising - I'd rather that outcome than being manipulated by corporations.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
You could also show them ads for rehab therapy.
- stirfish 5y ago
  I know I'm drifting off topic, but a lot of commercial rehabs are basically insurance scams, at least in America. I'd argue those ads are both manipulative and harmful. Here's one story: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/01/metro/charges-filed-alleged-addiction-treatment-fraud-scheme/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/01/metro/charges-filed-a...
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I just meant it as an example that you could theoretically show people beneficial ads. Maybe show ads for lawyers defending victims of fraudulent rehabs then.

saghm 5y ago

> Untargeted ads on the other hand would need to more manipulative to be equally effective. I think that point is that untargeted ads _are_ less effective; they can't be more manipulative precisely because they don't have knowledge about who they're being presented to, so they have to try to go for broad shallow appeal instead of deep and narrow.

dsizzle 5y ago
All else equal, sure, but wouldn't advertisers change the content and style of the ad knowing if it will be targeted or not? Can't broad and shallow be manipulative--"keeping up with Joneses"--while deep and narrow is purely informational?
- saghm 5y ago
  If that was the case, why bother doing targeting at all? It costs a lot of time and money to gather all those adds, so if it wasn't better, there'd be no point
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  Why would an advertiser ever choose a “less manipulative” ad version because they know more about their potential client? “Good will” seems woefully idealistic.
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Because people can sometimes detect when someone is trying to manipulate them (we're having this discussion after all), and it might backfire?