4 ms·

Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. The Magazine-content defines its target-group. This doesn't work for platform-based ad

Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. The Magazine-content defines its target-group. This doesn't work for platform-based advertising, the platform needs to offer ways to select the target-group to address. Google purchased transaction data to connect online behavior to the real world and refine their Persona profile. Apple doesn't need to do this, because they already collect data from their users' behavior in the real world via their Apple Pay / Apple Card purchases. In 2017 Google didn't know whether you actually have money to buy a new TV, they only saw that you kept looking at TVs online. So they thought it's a good idea to buy this data to refine their Ad Personas. In 2023, Apple already owns sufficient data to know if you can afford a TV or not. They curate your persona from your Apple ID and your Apple Pay transactions and even know whether you went to BestBuy recently. Putting you in a matching advertising cluster for that isn't a legal privacy violation, your private data will never be shared with anyone. Just like Google and Meta don't share your private data with anyone. I don't like any of those practices, but let's not buy into the illusion that Apple is doing anything different to Meta/Google. They all create and refine Personas to allow targeted marketing, and protect the underlying data to be the gatekeeper.

GeekyBear 4y ago
> Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page, just like it's possible to sell ads based on the content of a magazine. It's just not as profitable as relentlessly spying on everyone. > Google purchased transaction data to connect online behavior to the real world and refine their Persona profile Google already has more than enough data on it's customers through their search history. They don't need to relentlessly spy on every aspect of your life, including your bank account, to turn a profit.
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  > It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page. Yes. But at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. If Bentley shops for ads tomorrow, they can select Personas like "Age 40-60", "owns a car" and many others from Meta as well as Google as well as Apple. Those are the "ads relevant to you" Apple talks about in their T&C. Again, I don't like it either, but let's not buy into the illusion that Apple is not entering this exact same industry to sell their customers' attention to the highest bidder. > Google already has more than enough data on it's customers And so does Apple. Time to start a lucrative ads business.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    > at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. So they can run their ads on web pages that are related to luxury goods. It's entirely possible to sell ads without relentlessly spying on everyone. It's just less profitable.
    - rickdeckard 4y ago
      Hence "Yes". Lots of things are "possible", it's just not how things are. We're circling around a straw-man
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        Yes, for some reason you're pushing the straw man argument that relentlessly spying on everyone, even people who are not your customer at all, is the same thing as having a first party business relationship with your own customer.
        rickdeckard 4y ago
        Nope. I'm asking how the persona creation of Google/Meta for selling ads is any different to Apple doing the very same thing, and if those actions when done by one party qualify as "spying", what are the same actions done by Apple then. You avoided clarifying your view on Apple's actions for hours and instead kept arguing how Google/Meta's action are clearly espionage. Now you inadvertently clarified that Apple is free to do all of the same that Google/Meta are doing because when Apple is doing it it is a first-party "business relationship". When Google/Meta is doing it, it is somehow never a first-party relationship but always an outside actor spying on people who don't use their products. Despite both parties doing this to refine the persona's they have of their platform users. That's settled then. Have a good day.
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        You remain completely unconvincing on this topic, and relying on straw man arguments isn't helping.

GeekyBear 4y ago

> Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page, just like it's possible to sell ads based on the content of a magazine. It's just not as profitable as relentlessly spying on everyone. > Google purchased transaction data to connect online behavior to the real world and refine their Persona profile Google already has more than enough data on it's customers through their search history. They don't need to relentlessly spy on every aspect of your life, including your bank account, to turn a profit.

rickdeckard 4y ago
> It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page. Yes. But at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. If Bentley shops for ads tomorrow, they can select Personas like "Age 40-60", "owns a car" and many others from Meta as well as Google as well as Apple. Those are the "ads relevant to you" Apple talks about in their T&C. Again, I don't like it either, but let's not buy into the illusion that Apple is not entering this exact same industry to sell their customers' attention to the highest bidder. > Google already has more than enough data on it's customers And so does Apple. Time to start a lucrative ads business.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. So they can run their ads on web pages that are related to luxury goods. It's entirely possible to sell ads without relentlessly spying on everyone. It's just less profitable.
  - rickdeckard 4y ago
    Hence "Yes". Lots of things are "possible", it's just not how things are. We're circling around a straw-man
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      Yes, for some reason you're pushing the straw man argument that relentlessly spying on everyone, even people who are not your customer at all, is the same thing as having a first party business relationship with your own customer.
      - rickdeckard 4y ago
        Nope. I'm asking how the persona creation of Google/Meta for selling ads is any different to Apple doing the very same thing, and if those actions when done by one party qualify as "spying", what are the same actions done by Apple then. You avoided clarifying your view on Apple's actions for hours and instead kept arguing how Google/Meta's action are clearly espionage. Now you inadvertently clarified that Apple is free to do all of the same that Google/Meta are doing because when Apple is doing it it is a first-party "business relationship". When Google/Meta is doing it, it is somehow never a first-party relationship but always an outside actor spying on people who don't use their products. Despite both parties doing this to refine the persona's they have of their platform users. That's settled then. Have a good day.
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        You remain completely unconvincing on this topic, and relying on straw man arguments isn't helping.