6 ms·

When I was a minor in the 80s and 90s, I had unskippable 30-60 second ads called commercials that targeted me during my cartoons (breakfast cereal and toys I co

by madrox 3y ago

When I was a minor in the 80s and 90s, I had unskippable 30-60 second ads called commercials that targeted me during my cartoons (breakfast cereal and toys I could pester my parents to buy me) and, when I got older, MTV and magazines. Part of it was self selection (I started reading gaming magazines, so saw full page gaming ads). These publishers knew who I was through my subscription. Sure, the segments were broader, but culture was homogenous by necessity. You didn’t see the cultural divergence of today that the internet (and targeting) have enabled. I think the mechanics of targeting have changed, but we’re fooling ourselves if we think we haven’t had “targeted” ads for a long while before the internet took over.

squigz 3y ago
I really don't think the commenter you're replying to was implying we haven't had targeted advertising for a while, but rather that the issue is how targeted it's getting.
broscillator 3y ago
It's kind of like comparing a random person throwing a rock trying to hit you, vs a professional sniper with the most advanced scope and powerful rifle.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
there's an ocean of difference between targetting a demographic (kids) and targetting an individual (you).
nunez 3y ago
That's "casting a net" style targeted advertising vs "we specifically want 15-18yo gamers in southwest Texas who primarily play these games at this time and might be going through a tough time based on their liked posts on Instagram" IMO this is great for companies, but potentially very bad for consumers (I.e. engaging customers when they're most vulnerable)
- pests 3y ago
  I don't think any of the ad networks offer "recently gone through a breakup". Besides that I see nothing wrong with the audience you've defined.
  - broscillator 3y ago
    Maybe not in those terms, but I don't see why the algorithm can't do internal work to basically take that into account, whether it's made explicit or not. You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? What do you think happens when it is determined that poor mental health increases ad revenue? Do you think social apps would refrain from manipulating their content in order to keep you in the sweet spot of poor mental health to increase ad revenue? Out of compassion? Or?
    - pests 3y ago
      > You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? I do find it wrong and didn't say otherwise. Just where is this possible? How does a person or company target people with vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health? Do you mean in general, as in FB/Google are doing this to every person, all the time? I just don't believe this is a product or service you can purchase from any ad network right now. Its like asking: Don't you think its wrong for companies to use mind-reading technology to target sales?
      - broscillator 3y ago
        It doesn't have to be explicit and on purpose. It can be something the algorithms slowly crawl towards, and someone working in them might notice. On the other hand, it's been well known for a while the effect of outrage in online engagement. Trolling and fake news became political weapons to recruit people, making them emotional, invested, it has shaped belief and behavior. There's people who get paid to spread this kind of content with this goal, for more sinister purposes than ad revenue. The negative emotion of anger is exploited to get people to stay engaged online. So this is not new, at all. Why would it be limited to anger? For what reason would FB/Google refrain from doing it? This is what I'm curious about, do you honestly think it's not possible to use the algorithms and AI for such a task? If not, surely you admit it would be possible soon? And if so, would they abstain for moral reasons?

by madrox 3y ago

squigz 3y ago

I really don't think the commenter you're replying to was implying we haven't had targeted advertising for a while, but rather that the issue is how targeted it's getting.

broscillator 3y ago

It's kind of like comparing a random person throwing a rock trying to hit you, vs a professional sniper with the most advanced scope and powerful rifle.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

there's an ocean of difference between targetting a demographic (kids) and targetting an individual (you).

nunez 3y ago

That's "casting a net" style targeted advertising vs "we specifically want 15-18yo gamers in southwest Texas who primarily play these games at this time and might be going through a tough time based on their liked posts on Instagram" IMO this is great for companies, but potentially very bad for consumers (I.e. engaging customers when they're most vulnerable)

pests 3y ago
I don't think any of the ad networks offer "recently gone through a breakup". Besides that I see nothing wrong with the audience you've defined.
- broscillator 3y ago
  Maybe not in those terms, but I don't see why the algorithm can't do internal work to basically take that into account, whether it's made explicit or not. You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? What do you think happens when it is determined that poor mental health increases ad revenue? Do you think social apps would refrain from manipulating their content in order to keep you in the sweet spot of poor mental health to increase ad revenue? Out of compassion? Or?
  - pests 3y ago
    > You don't see anything wrong with using vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health as parameters to target sales? I do find it wrong and didn't say otherwise. Just where is this possible? How does a person or company target people with vulnerable states of mind or poor mental health? Do you mean in general, as in FB/Google are doing this to every person, all the time? I just don't believe this is a product or service you can purchase from any ad network right now. Its like asking: Don't you think its wrong for companies to use mind-reading technology to target sales?
    - broscillator 3y ago
      It doesn't have to be explicit and on purpose. It can be something the algorithms slowly crawl towards, and someone working in them might notice. On the other hand, it's been well known for a while the effect of outrage in online engagement. Trolling and fake news became political weapons to recruit people, making them emotional, invested, it has shaped belief and behavior. There's people who get paid to spread this kind of content with this goal, for more sinister purposes than ad revenue. The negative emotion of anger is exploited to get people to stay engaged online. So this is not new, at all. Why would it be limited to anger? For what reason would FB/Google refrain from doing it? This is what I'm curious about, do you honestly think it's not possible to use the algorithms and AI for such a task? If not, surely you admit it would be possible soon? And if so, would they abstain for moral reasons?