2 ms·

>you don’t get to double dip and also sell my data to your advertisers and earn more on the side. 1. Placing an Ad on the page has absolutely nothing to do wit

by ksec 2y ago

>you don’t get to double dip and also sell my data to your advertisers and earn more on the side. 1. Placing an Ad on the page has absolutely nothing to do with selling your data. Just like a magazine decide to place a print ad. 2. Ad can sometimes function as news. New Product launch, marketing notes. etc. 3. Even an internet targeting Ad, which the author is likely referring to, does not necessarily sell your data to advertiser. Your data, however may likely be gathered elsewhere that the Ad company uses for targeting. 4. There is no such thing as double dip when your data isn't even involved. Which means you are only paying once. And not twice. 5. Placing an Ad, an additional revenue generation function on the site is not double dipping. Even if the ad is inside your subscription. You are free to cancel or sue if the subscription originally promised zero ads. 6. The correct amount of ads is when Ad does not feel like an ad. The answer is very likely to be non zero but minimal. Final Note: I Notice HN has swing back enough to allow decent discussions on these sort of topics. Ads were nearly forbidden to talk about from 2013 - 2023.

subjectsigma 2y ago
I’m convinced you have no idea what common terms like “double dipping”, “absolutely nothing”, or “news” mean. Which honestly seems pretty on brand for someone supporting advertising
kmeisthax 2y ago
1. Advertisements without data are worthless. At a minimum you need a mechanism to combat click fraud and that requires detailed profiles and tracking on users to determine the economic value of those users. 2. This is a vanishingly small subset of ads. 3. While advertisers do not directly receive your data, you do still get tracked. Furthermore, the infrastructure undergirding ad tracking is comically easy to appropriate for law enforcement and national security purposes; the CIA buys a shitton of ad tracking data from data brokers. Furthermore, targeted advertising, even if used as intended without any law enforcement spook tracking nonsense, is still a nightmare because it allows fraudsters to target ads directly to their most optimal marks. Think about how good Facebook is at showing your grandpa a bunch of fake ads for fraudulent products and scams. Scamming online got a lot more efficient with targeted advertising. 4. The double dip still exists even if data isn't tracked because I don't want to see ads. I am paying to remove them. In fact, I shouldn't even have to pay to remove the tracking; that should be free, and under EU law it is free. 5. A lot of subscriptions actually were sold as no ads, because that's the thing people want. 6. The correct amount of ads are zero. Because ads are not information, they are attacks, in the same way that social engineering is an attack.
- ksec 2y ago
  1. Not all ads are pay per click. There are still plenty of old fashion ad slot in podcast, video or even web page. See Darling Fireball, currently running 1Password Ad. 2. This happen a lot more in publishing industry than people would like to admit. 3. I dont disagree here. But most site still dont sell your data. Which is my point about double dipping. Tracking, however is another issue and I dont support it. 4, 5. I think there is where the top / my comment and the opinion of others on HN differs. No one, and even in this case the Verge ever said there will be zero ads. 6. Ads are everywhere. Newsletters, communication from Visa, Master, AMEX, App Store, Promotional material on discount, etc All have Ads. To suggest they have zero information or value to users is simply ignoring how large part of the world works.
account42 2y ago
1. Even if you start out without tracking, the incentives will eventually push towards doing whatever increases returns. 2. Only if your idea of news is the propaganda and corporate press releases pushed these days. I prefer my news to come from impartial sources, not those extracting enough profits that they can throw it on ads. 3. It may not sell the data directly to the advertise but it must by design be able to leak some information about you. And that's before getting to full on malware shipped with ads. It also doesn't matter who my data is leaked to, I don't want it collected in the first place. 4. If ads weren't profitable no one would run them. Your paying for them by being manipulated into doing or thinking what the advertiser wants. Thinking ads are free for the users is beyond naive. 5. Being able to choose not do do business with double dippers doens't make it not double dipping. 6. No, hiding the psychological manipulation more effectively does not make it any less wrong. There is nothing to discuss. I do not give consent. You don't get to ignore that.

by ksec 2y ago

subjectsigma 2y ago

I’m convinced you have no idea what common terms like “double dipping”, “absolutely nothing”, or “news” mean. Which honestly seems pretty on brand for someone supporting advertising

kmeisthax 2y ago

1. Advertisements without data are worthless. At a minimum you need a mechanism to combat click fraud and that requires detailed profiles and tracking on users to determine the economic value of those users. 2. This is a vanishingly small subset of ads. 3. While advertisers do not directly receive your data, you do still get tracked. Furthermore, the infrastructure undergirding ad tracking is comically easy to appropriate for law enforcement and national security purposes; the CIA buys a shitton of ad tracking data from data brokers. Furthermore, targeted advertising, even if used as intended without any law enforcement spook tracking nonsense, is still a nightmare because it allows fraudsters to target ads directly to their most optimal marks. Think about how good Facebook is at showing your grandpa a bunch of fake ads for fraudulent products and scams. Scamming online got a lot more efficient with targeted advertising. 4. The double dip still exists even if data isn't tracked because I don't want to see ads. I am paying to remove them. In fact, I shouldn't even have to pay to remove the tracking; that should be free, and under EU law it is free. 5. A lot of subscriptions actually were sold as no ads, because that's the thing people want. 6. The correct amount of ads are zero. Because ads are not information, they are attacks, in the same way that social engineering is an attack.

ksec 2y ago
1. Not all ads are pay per click. There are still plenty of old fashion ad slot in podcast, video or even web page. See Darling Fireball, currently running 1Password Ad. 2. This happen a lot more in publishing industry than people would like to admit. 3. I dont disagree here. But most site still dont sell your data. Which is my point about double dipping. Tracking, however is another issue and I dont support it. 4, 5. I think there is where the top / my comment and the opinion of others on HN differs. No one, and even in this case the Verge ever said there will be zero ads. 6. Ads are everywhere. Newsletters, communication from Visa, Master, AMEX, App Store, Promotional material on discount, etc All have Ads. To suggest they have zero information or value to users is simply ignoring how large part of the world works.

account42 2y ago

1. Even if you start out without tracking, the incentives will eventually push towards doing whatever increases returns. 2. Only if your idea of news is the propaganda and corporate press releases pushed these days. I prefer my news to come from impartial sources, not those extracting enough profits that they can throw it on ads. 3. It may not sell the data directly to the advertise but it must by design be able to leak some information about you. And that's before getting to full on malware shipped with ads. It also doesn't matter who my data is leaked to, I don't want it collected in the first place. 4. If ads weren't profitable no one would run them. Your paying for them by being manipulated into doing or thinking what the advertiser wants. Thinking ads are free for the users is beyond naive. 5. Being able to choose not do do business with double dippers doens't make it not double dipping. 6. No, hiding the psychological manipulation more effectively does not make it any less wrong. There is nothing to discuss. I do not give consent. You don't get to ignore that.