5 ms·

That's some mustache-twirling evil stuff. As a side note, this is a problem with ads as a business: since the morality of the very practice is dubious, the com

That's some mustache-twirling evil stuff. As a side note, this is a problem with ads as a business: since the morality of the very practice is dubious, the companies that sell them aren't expected to behave ethically.

draw_down 5y ago
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
> since the morality of the very practice is dubious Really? What's "dubious" about selling attention for money and/or physical goods? The practice is older than money itself. The current social contract where advertising is clearly marked as out-of-stream information is a very good thing. Because the alternative is all advertising is "native", meaning lies and deception. The only unethical part of the landscape is the fact that Google (et al.) disrupted the traditional advertising markets and managed to avoid having to comply to existing legislation.
- BarryMilo 5y ago
  Advertising is an attempt to steer your thoughts in a specific direction for personal gain. Surely you can understand how some people are not okay with that?
  - kibwen 5y ago
    In other words, advertising is socially-acceptable corporate-sponsored brainwashing.
  - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
    No. Selling a fiction book is also "an attempt to steer your thoughts for personal gain". Advertising is a more specific thing: an implicit social contract where demands on your attention are rewarded with non-monetary bonuses. As such it's a good thing, because a world with no social contract or rewards would be shittier.
    - pnt12 5y ago
      Millions of people installed adblock. When YouTube increased the number of ads, lots of people complained about it. People often complain about TV ads and switch to Netflix. There's no social contract - a company shows ads and gets money, so they do it. Do you really think customers are happy when an ad interrupts their favorite TV show? The answer is no fucking way. You've worked in the business for 17 years so it may cost you to believe it, but it's obvious to everyone else.
      - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
        You misunderstand. If tomorrow interrupting TV shows was banned you'd get 30 minute product placement fake "shows" instead. Imagine the TV show equivalent of autogenerated search spam clickbait. This is probably not what you really want.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Advertising may be old, but personalized advertising and the required large scale spying is not.
  - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
    Advertising doesn't want or need personalization or spying. (Media) Ad agencies are applied sociology and work on the law of large numbers. The large-scale spying doesn't come from advertiser or agency demands. That's a thing that the large digital monopolies invented to give themselves even more social leverage. (Source - Over 17 years of experience in the digital advertising space.)
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      So, you're saying that ad agencies are okay with just passively buying NxM pixels on somesite.com's homepage that is the same regardless of who is viewing them? If so, why is that business model so rare? It's a serious question, because I probably wouldn't block ads if they were passive images that just existed on a page.
      - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
        > So, you're saying that ad agencies are okay with just passively buying NxM pixels on somesite.com's homepage that is the same regardless of who is viewing them? Yes, because that's exactly how TV advertising works, and ad agencies view TV advertising as much more effective than digital. > If so, why is that business model so rare? For this model to work, you need somebody to do the statistical real-world sampling for you, using surveys, experiments and all of the rest of the classical sociology tools. Companies like Google and Facebook are very much against this because it shifts the balance of market power away from data collection (Google's strong suit) to neural third parties that do meatspace data science and data interpretation.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        I'm lost, you would need different (invasive?) data to replace the invasive spyware? Magic wand, I'm not sure what data you need to know. I'm curious about this because you're the first person in advertising I've talked to whose not all about microtargeted ads.
christophilus 5y ago
Advertising has been a thing since before the time of town criers. There’s nothing inherently immoral about telling people what services you offer.
- thizzbuzz 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago

otabdeveloper4 5y ago

> since the morality of the very practice is dubious Really? What's "dubious" about selling attention for money and/or physical goods? The practice is older than money itself. The current social contract where advertising is clearly marked as out-of-stream information is a very good thing. Because the alternative is all advertising is "native", meaning lies and deception. The only unethical part of the landscape is the fact that Google (et al.) disrupted the traditional advertising markets and managed to avoid having to comply to existing legislation.

BarryMilo 5y ago
Advertising is an attempt to steer your thoughts in a specific direction for personal gain. Surely you can understand how some people are not okay with that?
- kibwen 5y ago
  In other words, advertising is socially-acceptable corporate-sponsored brainwashing.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  No. Selling a fiction book is also "an attempt to steer your thoughts for personal gain". Advertising is a more specific thing: an implicit social contract where demands on your attention are rewarded with non-monetary bonuses. As such it's a good thing, because a world with no social contract or rewards would be shittier.
  - pnt12 5y ago
    Millions of people installed adblock. When YouTube increased the number of ads, lots of people complained about it. People often complain about TV ads and switch to Netflix. There's no social contract - a company shows ads and gets money, so they do it. Do you really think customers are happy when an ad interrupts their favorite TV show? The answer is no fucking way. You've worked in the business for 17 years so it may cost you to believe it, but it's obvious to everyone else.
    - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
      You misunderstand. If tomorrow interrupting TV shows was banned you'd get 30 minute product placement fake "shows" instead. Imagine the TV show equivalent of autogenerated search spam clickbait. This is probably not what you really want.
HWR_14 5y ago
Advertising may be old, but personalized advertising and the required large scale spying is not.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  Advertising doesn't want or need personalization or spying. (Media) Ad agencies are applied sociology and work on the law of large numbers. The large-scale spying doesn't come from advertiser or agency demands. That's a thing that the large digital monopolies invented to give themselves even more social leverage. (Source - Over 17 years of experience in the digital advertising space.)
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    So, you're saying that ad agencies are okay with just passively buying NxM pixels on somesite.com's homepage that is the same regardless of who is viewing them? If so, why is that business model so rare? It's a serious question, because I probably wouldn't block ads if they were passive images that just existed on a page.
    - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
      > So, you're saying that ad agencies are okay with just passively buying NxM pixels on somesite.com's homepage that is the same regardless of who is viewing them? Yes, because that's exactly how TV advertising works, and ad agencies view TV advertising as much more effective than digital. > If so, why is that business model so rare? For this model to work, you need somebody to do the statistical real-world sampling for you, using surveys, experiments and all of the rest of the classical sociology tools. Companies like Google and Facebook are very much against this because it shifts the balance of market power away from data collection (Google's strong suit) to neural third parties that do meatspace data science and data interpretation.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        I'm lost, you would need different (invasive?) data to replace the invasive spyware? Magic wand, I'm not sure what data you need to know. I'm curious about this because you're the first person in advertising I've talked to whose not all about microtargeted ads.

christophilus 5y ago

Advertising has been a thing since before the time of town criers. There’s nothing inherently immoral about telling people what services you offer.

thizzbuzz 5y ago