3 ms·
objectively this means you still get ads just less releavnt ones, no? It's not like the button says "Don't show me ads."
by el_nahual 4y ago
objectively this means you still get ads just less releavnt ones, no? It's not like the button says "Don't show me ads."
- dangwhy 4y ago> objectively this means you still get ads just less releavnt ones, no? business might choose to not show ads at all vs showing irrlevent ads. Surely there is a downside and risk to showing ads, a risk that cannot be taken willy nilly.
- Gigachad 4y agoLess targeted ads are less likely to psychologically manipulate me in to spending money. I'd like an option to only show me ads I have no chance of spending money for.
- timeon 4y agoLess relevant are better if you do not like ads. It is bit easier to filter them out of the mind.
- larnik 4y agoI hate ads. Used AdBlocker since ~2005 when I was in middle school and first got internet. If I'm going to see ads, they better be relevant.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y agoThe main effect of that button is blocking the measurement of whether your ad click turned into a purchase, which is important because pricing ads based on conversions is more efficient than charging for impressions or clicks. “Relevant” ads are sort of a red herring. Ad personalization matters, but commercially it’s less important than conversion measurement. Notably, Apple asks for permission before showing personalized ads, but never asks for permission to track conversions (while blocking competitors from tracking conversions by default).
- whateveracct 4y agoExactly - they are way easier to ignore! It speaks to how good targeted adtech is. When I don't give them unlimited access to my metadata, the ad quality plummets. They really can give you "good" ads if you let them. But now they have to waste money on untargeted ads for me lmao.