5 ms·

> "Also, being more privacy-friendly than Google and being privacy friendly are two different things." in theory, that's ok, if we have healthy, functioning ma

> "Also, being more privacy-friendly than Google and being privacy friendly are two different things." in theory, that's ok, if we have healthy, functioning markets that are free from undue influence of any individual participant. the "invisible hand" of the market would drive it iteratively toward more privacy (assuming this is valued by more than minor segment, greater than ~15% of the market). the market would (and should) be an ongoing conversation between suppliers and consumers to reach all the profitable corners of supply and demand, rather than a couple behemoths with megaphones telling us how great they are, rather than showing it through their products and practices. p.s. - has anyone else noticed adguard doing port-scans on your gateway from their dns service IPs? i haven't dug into it yet, so i don't know whether it's spoofed or whatnot.

whimsicalism 4y ago
> functioning markets that are free from undue influence of any individual participant. the "invisible hand" of the market would drive it iteratively toward more privacy (assuming this is valued by more than minor segment, greater than ~15% of the market) The market is for advertisers, and advertisers - whether they are small or large businesses - value tracking and measurability of their advertising investments.
- clairity 4y ago
  advertisers value a way of determining ROI, which doesn't necessarily require pervasive tracking (see: nielsen ratings of yore). in any case, my point was about the consumer electronics market, which is apple's core industry, and which, in a healthy and well-functioning market, also has a key stake in this conversation (driving it toward non-distorted, optimally efficient outcomes).
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > doesn't necessarily require pervasive tracking I disagree. Incrementality studies (which measure ROI) as advertisers want them are basically impossible with ATT. You need to be able to pass an ID between apps.
    - clairity 4y ago
      yes, but you haven't shown that that translates into more precise and accurate ROI. marketers and advertisers believe it should, but there's no solid proof. that's because markets (and any human endeavor) is complicated beyond our ability to model (and solve) it deterministically. attribution models (such as incrementality studies) can sometimes give you clues, but can't really tell you why any given person bought something with any certainty. it's the old adage of half of advertising dollars are wasted, but you don't know which half.
      - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
        Before ATT happened, FB has a tool that would run experiments to assess incrementality of your advertising. It's possible, but there are a bunch of privacy trade-offs..
        clairity 4y ago
        right, but again, those are very likely probabalistic, population-level models that make assumptions about how to attribute credit--does it all go to the first view/click? how likely is the first view/click really the first view/click? do you instead apportion credit across clicks/views? how? it's somewhat useful at a population level, but not at all at an individual level, especially not for the tradeoff in privacy, anonymity, and autonomy. but the kicker is, is it better than just doing studies without the more invasive attribution data, especially in relation to the higher price and market consolidation? very unlikely. ad monopolization means more of the value in the value chain goes to the monopolist regardless of the proportion of value they provide in the chain.
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        > is it better than just doing studies without the more invasive attribution data, Absolutely, as the controlled incrementality study is impossible without either attribution or some group-based approximation of attribution (ie. federated cohorts, etc.)
lostlogin 4y ago
> the market would (and should) be an ongoing conversation between suppliers and consumers to reach all the profitable corners of supply and demand, rather than a couple behemoths with megaphones telling us how great they are I agree but where do we see this? Everywhere I look it’s mega corps. Food, fuel, power, electronics, clothes. I can’t think of a good example of the ideal relationship.
- clairity 4y ago
  mostly in commodities markets (almost by definition, ha). if we had an anti-trust division with any teeth, we'd have many more markets like this, as that's the whole point of anti-trust enforcement--to un-distort markets to drive greater efficiencies and maximize value across the economy (not just in large corps and solely for the already wealthy).
  - lupire 4y ago
    Monopolies are optimally efficient across the economy, as long as the monopolist doesn't get too greedy. Competition is wasteful -- competition is why the deadweigh loss ad industry exists!
    - clairity 4y ago
      monopolies seeming to be efficient like that is only true in a limited static analysis. in a dynamic and complex economy, there's great value in the flexibility, ingenuity, resilience, price discovery, and creative restructuring provided by multiple competitors in a given market.

whimsicalism 4y ago

> functioning markets that are free from undue influence of any individual participant. the "invisible hand" of the market would drive it iteratively toward more privacy (assuming this is valued by more than minor segment, greater than ~15% of the market) The market is for advertisers, and advertisers - whether they are small or large businesses - value tracking and measurability of their advertising investments.

clairity 4y ago
advertisers value a way of determining ROI, which doesn't necessarily require pervasive tracking (see: nielsen ratings of yore). in any case, my point was about the consumer electronics market, which is apple's core industry, and which, in a healthy and well-functioning market, also has a key stake in this conversation (driving it toward non-distorted, optimally efficient outcomes).
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > doesn't necessarily require pervasive tracking I disagree. Incrementality studies (which measure ROI) as advertisers want them are basically impossible with ATT. You need to be able to pass an ID between apps.
  - clairity 4y ago
    yes, but you haven't shown that that translates into more precise and accurate ROI. marketers and advertisers believe it should, but there's no solid proof. that's because markets (and any human endeavor) is complicated beyond our ability to model (and solve) it deterministically. attribution models (such as incrementality studies) can sometimes give you clues, but can't really tell you why any given person bought something with any certainty. it's the old adage of half of advertising dollars are wasted, but you don't know which half.
    - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
      Before ATT happened, FB has a tool that would run experiments to assess incrementality of your advertising. It's possible, but there are a bunch of privacy trade-offs..
      - clairity 4y ago
        right, but again, those are very likely probabalistic, population-level models that make assumptions about how to attribute credit--does it all go to the first view/click? how likely is the first view/click really the first view/click? do you instead apportion credit across clicks/views? how? it's somewhat useful at a population level, but not at all at an individual level, especially not for the tradeoff in privacy, anonymity, and autonomy. but the kicker is, is it better than just doing studies without the more invasive attribution data, especially in relation to the higher price and market consolidation? very unlikely. ad monopolization means more of the value in the value chain goes to the monopolist regardless of the proportion of value they provide in the chain.
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        > is it better than just doing studies without the more invasive attribution data, Absolutely, as the controlled incrementality study is impossible without either attribution or some group-based approximation of attribution (ie. federated cohorts, etc.)

lostlogin 4y ago

> the market would (and should) be an ongoing conversation between suppliers and consumers to reach all the profitable corners of supply and demand, rather than a couple behemoths with megaphones telling us how great they are I agree but where do we see this? Everywhere I look it’s mega corps. Food, fuel, power, electronics, clothes. I can’t think of a good example of the ideal relationship.

clairity 4y ago
mostly in commodities markets (almost by definition, ha). if we had an anti-trust division with any teeth, we'd have many more markets like this, as that's the whole point of anti-trust enforcement--to un-distort markets to drive greater efficiencies and maximize value across the economy (not just in large corps and solely for the already wealthy).
- lupire 4y ago
  Monopolies are optimally efficient across the economy, as long as the monopolist doesn't get too greedy. Competition is wasteful -- competition is why the deadweigh loss ad industry exists!
  - clairity 4y ago
    monopolies seeming to be efficient like that is only true in a limited static analysis. in a dynamic and complex economy, there's great value in the flexibility, ingenuity, resilience, price discovery, and creative restructuring provided by multiple competitors in a given market.