3 ms·
Personalized advertising should never have been allowed without a specific opt-in. I know lots of advertisers think they can't live without it --- because prom
by jqpabc123 3y ago
Personalized advertising should never have been allowed without a specific opt-in.
I know lots of advertisers think they can't live without it --- because promoters have told them so.
- thorncorona 3y agoObservationally, facebook ads are the best I’ve seen by a long shot.
- autoexec 3y agoCambridge Analytica and countless scammers agree with you, but the world was just fine before facebook ads and there are plenty of other mediums through which people could continue to manipulate you if facebook ads went away entirely now. Limiting facebook to just non-personalized ads seems entirely harmless.
- yoz-y 3y agoInstagram ads is why I started going to live concerts again. Were they not personalised it wouldn't have happened.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y agoI haven't seen any personalized ad for the past 5 years (at least) and yet I'm discovering great artists/bands every now and then. Advertising is a type of "content", and people like content-, but how one can say it's better than the content recommended by people not paid to promote it? One, the more people are used to get their content via ads (instead of share by friends), the least they'll be incentivize to share good content. Two, platforms that are paid by advertisers are certainly incentivize to have the best content in ads vs non ads. Why feature a video in your feed but they can be paid to push the same content from an advertiser? There are so many reasons why "some ads are great" says nothing about ads being a good thing.
- mantas 3y agoBest one I heard was people claiming products will be more expensive if personalized advertising is banned. Because then it’ll cost more to promote them.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoInteresting line of reasoning. :-) That would imply, that (globally) we spent significantly [EDIT: remove -less-, insert:] more on advertising before the advent of personalized targeting.
- smeej 3y agoI think it's the other way around. If we go back to the situation in the past, price goes up, not down.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoCorrect, my bad. Got confused while writing by the observation that ad expenditure is rising year after year. So clearly, the "savings" allegedly attributed to personalized targeting have not translated to advertisers.
- spacebanana7 3y agoNot necessarily, cost reductions can increase, decrease or have no effect the total expenditure on goods. The total effect is quite ambiguous depending on the income and substitution effects.
- aesh2Xa1 3y agoI agree. I've always heard "charge what the market will bear." Why would a reduction in advertising costs equate to lower consumer pricing — if there's a better margin to be had instead?
- hirako2000 3y ago
- repelsteeltje 3y ago> Personalized advertising should never have been allowed without a specific opt-in. As a thought experiment, let's go back to the time when the internet existed, adds existed, but targeted adds were in their infancy. Now let's imagine they were launched as some sort of op-in Google BETA this in early 0s fashion. Assuming, for a moment that the targeting quality was on part — would that have been a success? Ie. would the user adoption have been significantly higher Apple's Tracking Transparancy Policy? (Considering that consent was involved before distrust accumulated in the following decades as result of forcefully surveiling, fingerprinting, third-party cookiea, facebook shenanigans, appstore malware, supercookies, etc.)
- smeej 3y agoI don't think it would have been this "successful," but remember how long ago Facebook came out. In 2004, if someone had said something on the internet could "magically" surface all the stuff you really might be interested in, just by opting in and clicking a button? And it had worked really well? I think tons of people would have opted in. Back then, before smartphones, before carrying a device in your pocket that can track your every move, it wouldn't have seemed nearly as creepy. It's actually kind of amusing to me that Apple is the one acting like it's protecting people's data. Without Apple's invention of the iPhone, which doesn't have to be built to collect as much data about its use as it does, there wouldn't be nearly as much data for these apps to collect!
- wh0knows 3y agoApple conveniently takes the public stance of user protection, but their real position is that they want to be the only ones who can collect and use their users data.
- ndriscoll 3y agoEarly 0s? Presumably not since at the time, doubleclick (now Google) had the same reputation Google has now. At the time, adware and spyware were malware, and there was an industry around anti-malware tools like adaware and spybot: search and destroy. Among other things, IIRC those tools would delete your doubleclick cookies. The distrust was immediate, and if anything people have given up and grown used to malware being part of the OS now.
- diego_sandoval 3y agoYou specifically opt-in when you create your account on IG/FB.
- xxs 3y agothis is not the case in the EU at any rate whatsoever
- RamblingCTO 3y agoNo you don't. They track you even without an account. See the person reconstructing this with his wife a few comments up.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago> because promoters have told them so. No, it's because they want to make as much money as possible. If promoters told them to turn off all ads, they wouldn't. They don't care about promoters. They care about money.
- jqpabc123 3y agoThey don't care about promoters. They care about money. The promoters of personalized advertising care about money too. The auction systems they promote can be easily manipulated to maximize profits. And since these systems are "black boxes", advertisers themselves really have no way to know if they are being manipulated or not. The only insight they have is what the promoters tell them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]