6 ms·

Thanks, I think people are not really digging into the implications here. A lot of that is because, I suspect, that advertising is taken as being evil as an ax

Thanks, I think people are not really digging into the implications here. A lot of that is because, I suspect, that advertising is taken as being evil as an axiom. Ads are evil, therefor anything related to ads is evil. Or, for some, ads that are targeted are evil. It feels religious when I talk to some people - I have spoken with many who genuinely believe that an ad is an inherently bad thing. They resent someone advertising to them in all forms, under all circumstances. But ads are also a large part of how the internet works. I wrote hundreds of blog posts using wordpress.com for free, and it's because they would put an ad on the site. So if we step back and ask "how do we allow for targeted advertising while also ensuring user privacy", I think we end up with something like this. I don't want advertisers to know things like my name, my usernames, the sites I visit, etc. I am ok with advertisers getting some opaque token with tags like "Programmer, American, Energy Drinks" or whatever. Especially since I can control this in my settings. Finding a helpful line between helping the right ads get to the right people, thus ensuring the web continues to be free, and also making sure that you're not one data breach away from having your entire persona exposed, seems like a reasonable path forward.

nullindividual 3y ago
No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They’re not a useful function of society and indeed are deceptive, harmful, and dangerous. Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant. > Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it. Kinda proving my point. Nothing in your post actually substantiates why advertising is inherently bad, you just state it as if it's true.
  - Ruthalas 3y ago
    "They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant." I don't have any interest in them doing so, so this seems to work out. I'm not interested in being manipulated, nor providing information about myself to make that manipulation more effective.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      You're not really engaging with the conversation, which is kind of my entire point about the group of people (like yourself) who say "ads bad" and that's it. I gave a case where advertising allowed me to write a blog for years, without paying any money. Indeed people make these choices all the time - mobile games are a good example where people will not want to purchase the game for a dollar but are happy to watch an ad every 30 minutes. Unless you're willing to accept that advertising has some potential value I don't think there's any point in us discussing solutions.
      - Ruthalas 3y ago
        Though I'd prefer no advertisements, I think it's worth distinguishing between targeted ads and those that are simply based on the page content. If you run a technical blog and run advertisements that fit that theme, I am less adverse to that. I see the tradeoffs there, and can choose to visit your page and see your content knowing the exchange that's being made. I was responding specifically to your concern that the advertiser would no longer be able to tailor their advertisement to me if deprived of information about me. (My preference is to directly fund people who make things I enjoy, and I do practice that. I also think most mobile games funded by ads rely on predatory models to be profitable, which isn't really ideal. The whole thing is a mess of misaligned incentives.)
        insanitybit 3y ago
        Thanks, so I think we both agree that some advertisements are fine, which is the point I've been trying to make. How do we make all advertisements "fine". Direct payment would never have worked for my personal site, I could not pay and certainly my dozen readers weren't going to. But that site made my career. Ads allowed that. As for what advertisers need to continue funding that, while not being awful, I think that is the interesting question.
- fluidcruft 3y ago
  I think there's an ecological angle to it. The more targeted ads can become, the more valuable any individual ad display becomes, and the fewer ads need to be delivered to support the content. People making compelling content with well targeted ads can provide less obnoxious experiences (and they will stand out vs other sites that spam the hell out of your eyes). Basically, there's a dynamic at play where when ads are less targeted, you should expect to see more ads and those ads that you see are all the more "annoying" because they're not relevant. I really am open to whatever this Privacy Sandbox is about but I just haven't found anything that explains it. The popup I saw actually seemed sort of interesting where it's teasing this interaction where your browser is saying "Hey, you seem to be interested in these things, can I tell ads that you're interested in them?" and I really sort of like that approach. But... I don't understand where that list is coming from, how new items get added to the list after I've reviewed it, etc. I do NOT want to have to POLL some preference page to make sure things I don't want in that list creep in. Or maybe I could explicitly add things I know I am definitely interested in from a list? I'd prefer it was more upfront and asked me each time it found a new one or however it works. So... I actually see a way this could be empowering to users if done correctly. It's my lack of high-level understanding what is going on and my experience that Google seems to have become mealymouthed lately so I have a base level of distrust. It comes off as yet another "hey you need to stop what you are doing and research something Google's doing to you" again and I don't know if I have the time for that and I have the expectation that it's going to be a waste of multiple hours to try and find any useful info from Google itself. So it may be good or bad but really I don't give a shit about learning about things at the level of a browser implementer. In the mean time it's always easy to just say "No" and nope out of Chrome. Perhaps if Microsoft allows it into Edge then it's at least been filtered through a Google adversary. Edit: so I decided to take a peek and yeah of course privacysandbox.com is just your typical Google goosechase. "How does this work?" answers with essentially "We don't know! Go see developer.chrome.com or developer.android.com and see if you can manage to find something there!" Literally linking to the top level of those sites rather than anything useful. Fuck you too, Google.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    > fewer ads need to be delivered to support the content. Rhetorical: What company says "new tech? I can do less of this thing that makes money!" (or government, for that matter). > Fuck you too, Google. That's the spirit.
JohnFen 3y ago
> if we step back and ask "how do we allow for targeted advertising while also ensuring user privacy", I think we end up with something like this. That's assuming that targeted advertising is acceptable in the first place. I don't agree that it is.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > That's assuming that targeted advertising is acceptable in the first place. I don't agree that it is. That was the subject of the entire first half of my comment.
pixl97 3y ago
Are all ads bad? Probably not, but you'd quickly learn to distust all ads of one out of 10 jumped out and tried to shoot you in the face. There is just far too much money in trying to hoover up all of your data and sell it off to someone else for the 'bad guys' not to try it constantly. When even governments are telling you to use ad blockers to protect yourself you know the industry has long let the problem get out of control. Users are going to protect themselves.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  But this work from Chrome is an attempt at limiting the ability to "hoover up" your data and sell it (ie: this pairs with disabled 3rd party cookies) without killing advertising as a whole.
falcolas 3y ago
Ads are evil. They represent the efforts of a multi billion dollar industry using the output of millions of dollars of psychological research to manipulate you into buying things you don’t need. The average person has no chance against this psychological manipulation. Burn it to the ground, and let something sane take its place. Micro payments and its kin don’t work today because ads are easier. Create a space and a need for them, and watch them flourish.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  I'm fine with looking for alternatives to advertising, but so far nothing has been successful. People are choosing ads.
  - 93po 3y ago
    It’s almost like there’s hundreds of billions of dollars at play to make people incentivized to push ad ecosystems as much as possible
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      I think mobile ads are an obvious example of users choosing ads. Mobile apps can almost never actually charge money - people will not pay a dollar to download an app. But they'll happily accept advertisements in their app.
      - 93po 3y ago
        i avoid the app store like the plague because it's awful, but it's basically impossible to find options that aren't ad supported. and the lack of purchasing incentive has a lot of other factors into it as well aside from "i want ads". there's also massive user distrust in paying for apps because they're so often garbage in general i search for apps these days by googling for FOSS and filtering results to reddit.
- bad_user 3y ago
  Ads are communication. Are you saying that communication is evil? I regularly see young and naive folks online saying things like "supporting your favorite creators by buying their product isn't capitalism", or "self-promotion isn't advertising". All that cognitive dissonance must really hurt.

nullindividual 3y ago

No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They’re not a useful function of society and indeed are deceptive, harmful, and dangerous. Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it.

insanitybit 3y ago
> No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant. > Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it. Kinda proving my point. Nothing in your post actually substantiates why advertising is inherently bad, you just state it as if it's true.
- Ruthalas 3y ago
  "They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant." I don't have any interest in them doing so, so this seems to work out. I'm not interested in being manipulated, nor providing information about myself to make that manipulation more effective.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    You're not really engaging with the conversation, which is kind of my entire point about the group of people (like yourself) who say "ads bad" and that's it. I gave a case where advertising allowed me to write a blog for years, without paying any money. Indeed people make these choices all the time - mobile games are a good example where people will not want to purchase the game for a dollar but are happy to watch an ad every 30 minutes. Unless you're willing to accept that advertising has some potential value I don't think there's any point in us discussing solutions.
    - Ruthalas 3y ago
      Though I'd prefer no advertisements, I think it's worth distinguishing between targeted ads and those that are simply based on the page content. If you run a technical blog and run advertisements that fit that theme, I am less adverse to that. I see the tradeoffs there, and can choose to visit your page and see your content knowing the exchange that's being made. I was responding specifically to your concern that the advertiser would no longer be able to tailor their advertisement to me if deprived of information about me. (My preference is to directly fund people who make things I enjoy, and I do practice that. I also think most mobile games funded by ads rely on predatory models to be profitable, which isn't really ideal. The whole thing is a mess of misaligned incentives.)
      - insanitybit 3y ago
        Thanks, so I think we both agree that some advertisements are fine, which is the point I've been trying to make. How do we make all advertisements "fine". Direct payment would never have worked for my personal site, I could not pay and certainly my dozen readers weren't going to. But that site made my career. Ads allowed that. As for what advertisers need to continue funding that, while not being awful, I think that is the interesting question.
fluidcruft 3y ago
I think there's an ecological angle to it. The more targeted ads can become, the more valuable any individual ad display becomes, and the fewer ads need to be delivered to support the content. People making compelling content with well targeted ads can provide less obnoxious experiences (and they will stand out vs other sites that spam the hell out of your eyes). Basically, there's a dynamic at play where when ads are less targeted, you should expect to see more ads and those ads that you see are all the more "annoying" because they're not relevant. I really am open to whatever this Privacy Sandbox is about but I just haven't found anything that explains it. The popup I saw actually seemed sort of interesting where it's teasing this interaction where your browser is saying "Hey, you seem to be interested in these things, can I tell ads that you're interested in them?" and I really sort of like that approach. But... I don't understand where that list is coming from, how new items get added to the list after I've reviewed it, etc. I do NOT want to have to POLL some preference page to make sure things I don't want in that list creep in. Or maybe I could explicitly add things I know I am definitely interested in from a list? I'd prefer it was more upfront and asked me each time it found a new one or however it works. So... I actually see a way this could be empowering to users if done correctly. It's my lack of high-level understanding what is going on and my experience that Google seems to have become mealymouthed lately so I have a base level of distrust. It comes off as yet another "hey you need to stop what you are doing and research something Google's doing to you" again and I don't know if I have the time for that and I have the expectation that it's going to be a waste of multiple hours to try and find any useful info from Google itself. So it may be good or bad but really I don't give a shit about learning about things at the level of a browser implementer. In the mean time it's always easy to just say "No" and nope out of Chrome. Perhaps if Microsoft allows it into Edge then it's at least been filtered through a Google adversary. Edit: so I decided to take a peek and yeah of course privacysandbox.com is just your typical Google goosechase. "How does this work?" answers with essentially "We don't know! Go see developer.chrome.com or developer.android.com and see if you can manage to find something there!" Literally linking to the top level of those sites rather than anything useful. Fuck you too, Google.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  > fewer ads need to be delivered to support the content. Rhetorical: What company says "new tech? I can do less of this thing that makes money!" (or government, for that matter). > Fuck you too, Google. That's the spirit.

JohnFen 3y ago

> if we step back and ask "how do we allow for targeted advertising while also ensuring user privacy", I think we end up with something like this. That's assuming that targeted advertising is acceptable in the first place. I don't agree that it is.

insanitybit 3y ago
> That's assuming that targeted advertising is acceptable in the first place. I don't agree that it is. That was the subject of the entire first half of my comment.

pixl97 3y ago

Are all ads bad? Probably not, but you'd quickly learn to distust all ads of one out of 10 jumped out and tried to shoot you in the face. There is just far too much money in trying to hoover up all of your data and sell it off to someone else for the 'bad guys' not to try it constantly. When even governments are telling you to use ad blockers to protect yourself you know the industry has long let the problem get out of control. Users are going to protect themselves.

insanitybit 3y ago
But this work from Chrome is an attempt at limiting the ability to "hoover up" your data and sell it (ie: this pairs with disabled 3rd party cookies) without killing advertising as a whole.

falcolas 3y ago

Ads are evil. They represent the efforts of a multi billion dollar industry using the output of millions of dollars of psychological research to manipulate you into buying things you don’t need. The average person has no chance against this psychological manipulation. Burn it to the ground, and let something sane take its place. Micro payments and its kin don’t work today because ads are easier. Create a space and a need for them, and watch them flourish.

insanitybit 3y ago
I'm fine with looking for alternatives to advertising, but so far nothing has been successful. People are choosing ads.
- 93po 3y ago
  It’s almost like there’s hundreds of billions of dollars at play to make people incentivized to push ad ecosystems as much as possible
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    I think mobile ads are an obvious example of users choosing ads. Mobile apps can almost never actually charge money - people will not pay a dollar to download an app. But they'll happily accept advertisements in their app.
    - 93po 3y ago
      i avoid the app store like the plague because it's awful, but it's basically impossible to find options that aren't ad supported. and the lack of purchasing incentive has a lot of other factors into it as well aside from "i want ads". there's also massive user distrust in paying for apps because they're so often garbage in general i search for apps these days by googling for FOSS and filtering results to reddit.
bad_user 3y ago
Ads are communication. Are you saying that communication is evil? I regularly see young and naive folks online saying things like "supporting your favorite creators by buying their product isn't capitalism", or "self-promotion isn't advertising". All that cognitive dissonance must really hurt.