4 ms·

They're serving first party targeted ads based on only their own data. If you're going to complain about that, it's close to saying that websites shouldn't be a

They're serving first party targeted ads based on only their own data. If you're going to complain about that, it's close to saying that websites shouldn't be able to make money from advertising at all.

rented_mule 3y ago
Very much this. It's a site/app that has probably been used by 80-90% of adults living in America over the last decade. It would not exist if these ads weren't targeted. I know because we knew (past tense because I'm no longer there) exactly how much targeting increased click-through-rate and how that affected revenue. On top of that, they were ads for doing more of what the user was doing right then, tailored to tastes we'd seen them exhibit over time. Our goal was that the ads should be relevant enough that they served as an exploration mechanism within the site/app. We didn't always do as well as we hoped there, but it was a lot better than what you see on most of the internet. And far less intrusive because they weren't random (i.e., un-targeted). I have run ad blockers plus used whole house DNS ad blocking as long as I've been aware of them, but I was fine working on these ads because it felt to me like ads done right. If we can't even allow for ads done right, then vast swaths of the internet have to be pay-walled or disappear. One consequence of that... only the rich get to use most of the internet. That's already too true as it is, I don't want to see it go further.
- skinkestek 3y ago
  I have no problems with this (first party, targeted) as far as I can read English and understand. In fact one of my bigger problems have been that Google has served me generic ads that are so misplaced they go far into attempted insult territory (shady dating sites, pay-to-win "strategy games" etc).
mcpackieh 3y ago
> websites shouldn't be able to make money from advertising at all. This is the case. Advertising is a scourge, psychological warfare waged by corporations against our minds and wallets. Advertisers have no moral qualms, they will exploit any psychololgical weakness to shill products, no matter how harmful. Find a "market" of teenagers with social issues? Show them ads of happy young people frolicking with friends to make them buy your carbonated sugar water; never mind that your product will rot their teeth and make them fat. Advertisers don't care about whether products are actually good for people, all they care about is successful shilling. Advertising is warfare waged by corporations against people and pretending otherwise makes you vulnerable to it. To fight back effectively we must use adblockers and advocate for advertising bans. If your website cannot exist without targeted advertising, then it is better for it to not exist.
- tempestn 3y ago
  Think about what it would mean to not have any advertising whatsoever. Most current large brands would essentially be entrenched forever. No matter how good a new product or service is, it's going to be almost impossible to reach a sustainable scale through purely organic growth starting from zero. Advertising in some form is necessary for an economy to function.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - DougN7 3y ago
      Tell us how you really feel. :) The problem is, as was mentioned above by someone, all content has to be paid for. If there were no ads we wouldn’t have had TV and radio for the past few decades. 90% of the internet would disappear, and the only stuff left would be paywalled - i.e. only the rich could use the web. I’m sure you try to avoid ads - I do too, they suck. But don’t pretend you don’t use a lot of websites that are not paid for with ads.
      - hollerith 3y ago
        The internet began in 1969 and by 1992 was by far the largest network of computers and had exactly zero ads and zero paywalls. (The US government imposed a rule against commercial use of the internet to appease private businesses that didn't want competition from the internet. The rule remained in force till 1992.) Also, you're currently using a very large non-paywalled site with no ads. So, no, ads are not needed to have a nice internet available to all.
        DougN7 3y ago
        I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest. I didn’t have access to the Internet in my home in 1992, and the rest of the world didn’t either. I did pay for and have access to Compuserve forums. There was very little content back then. Certainly no huge video sites where you can learn practically anything, or hardly any of the good benefits we enjoy from being online today. If you loved the 1992 internet I can probably find an AOL disk to send you. And just because there is one ad free site we are both using hardly means the rest of the sites wouldn’t somehow disappear. YC is paid for by some rich folks who have made plenty of money that ultimately (though not exclusively) came from ads. Like it or not, ads are an economic necessity. If you have a better solution start a company that gives away free, valuable content and prove it.

rented_mule 3y ago

Very much this. It's a site/app that has probably been used by 80-90% of adults living in America over the last decade. It would not exist if these ads weren't targeted. I know because we knew (past tense because I'm no longer there) exactly how much targeting increased click-through-rate and how that affected revenue. On top of that, they were ads for doing more of what the user was doing right then, tailored to tastes we'd seen them exhibit over time. Our goal was that the ads should be relevant enough that they served as an exploration mechanism within the site/app. We didn't always do as well as we hoped there, but it was a lot better than what you see on most of the internet. And far less intrusive because they weren't random (i.e., un-targeted). I have run ad blockers plus used whole house DNS ad blocking as long as I've been aware of them, but I was fine working on these ads because it felt to me like ads done right. If we can't even allow for ads done right, then vast swaths of the internet have to be pay-walled or disappear. One consequence of that... only the rich get to use most of the internet. That's already too true as it is, I don't want to see it go further.

skinkestek 3y ago
I have no problems with this (first party, targeted) as far as I can read English and understand. In fact one of my bigger problems have been that Google has served me generic ads that are so misplaced they go far into attempted insult territory (shady dating sites, pay-to-win "strategy games" etc).

mcpackieh 3y ago

> websites shouldn't be able to make money from advertising at all. This is the case. Advertising is a scourge, psychological warfare waged by corporations against our minds and wallets. Advertisers have no moral qualms, they will exploit any psychololgical weakness to shill products, no matter how harmful. Find a "market" of teenagers with social issues? Show them ads of happy young people frolicking with friends to make them buy your carbonated sugar water; never mind that your product will rot their teeth and make them fat. Advertisers don't care about whether products are actually good for people, all they care about is successful shilling. Advertising is warfare waged by corporations against people and pretending otherwise makes you vulnerable to it. To fight back effectively we must use adblockers and advocate for advertising bans. If your website cannot exist without targeted advertising, then it is better for it to not exist.

tempestn 3y ago
Think about what it would mean to not have any advertising whatsoever. Most current large brands would essentially be entrenched forever. No matter how good a new product or service is, it's going to be almost impossible to reach a sustainable scale through purely organic growth starting from zero. Advertising in some form is necessary for an economy to function.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - DougN7 3y ago
    Tell us how you really feel. :) The problem is, as was mentioned above by someone, all content has to be paid for. If there were no ads we wouldn’t have had TV and radio for the past few decades. 90% of the internet would disappear, and the only stuff left would be paywalled - i.e. only the rich could use the web. I’m sure you try to avoid ads - I do too, they suck. But don’t pretend you don’t use a lot of websites that are not paid for with ads.
    - hollerith 3y ago
      The internet began in 1969 and by 1992 was by far the largest network of computers and had exactly zero ads and zero paywalls. (The US government imposed a rule against commercial use of the internet to appease private businesses that didn't want competition from the internet. The rule remained in force till 1992.) Also, you're currently using a very large non-paywalled site with no ads. So, no, ads are not needed to have a nice internet available to all.
      - DougN7 3y ago
        I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest. I didn’t have access to the Internet in my home in 1992, and the rest of the world didn’t either. I did pay for and have access to Compuserve forums. There was very little content back then. Certainly no huge video sites where you can learn practically anything, or hardly any of the good benefits we enjoy from being online today. If you loved the 1992 internet I can probably find an AOL disk to send you. And just because there is one ad free site we are both using hardly means the rest of the sites wouldn’t somehow disappear. YC is paid for by some rich folks who have made plenty of money that ultimately (though not exclusively) came from ads. Like it or not, ads are an economic necessity. If you have a better solution start a company that gives away free, valuable content and prove it.