3 ms·

> When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google sear

by ksk 12y ago

> When people are actively looking for something, telling them about relevant somethings can create value instead of destroying it. So I'm fine with Google search, but less fine with Twitter's in-stream ads. Can you explain how twitter's in-stream ads are any different? You can apply any number of arguments that are identical to your Google one. "If I'm following News Outlet XYZ, telling me about News Outlet PQR can create value as they might have another take on this particular story". "If I'm following Pop artist M, telling me about similar Pop artists Q might be useful". You can also apply the other argument - "I know what I'm looking for just feed me the data and get out of the way" to both scenarios. You can break the activities down to - 1) Are you 'exploring' or 2) Are you just wanting to 'go to a particular data source X'. If you're exploring, of course you're going to be more open to other inputs, and in that scenario, ads - well not ads - but recommendations, are useful.

wpietri 12y ago
Sure. Search is me actively looking for something. E.g., I want to buy a replacement keyboard for my computer. My goal is to find something that somebody is selling. There, ads may be relevant to my direct intent. If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal. Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the advertisers. Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help. Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my purchasing behaviors. I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit. I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need to hear. Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want them.

by ksk 12y ago

wpietri 12y ago

Sure. Search is me actively looking for something. E.g., I want to buy a replacement keyboard for my computer. My goal is to find something that somebody is selling. There, ads may be relevant to my direct intent. If I am reading a newspaper, I am actively trying to follow the writing on a topic. Somebody trying to sell me something is a distraction from that goal. Scanning newspaper headlines is in theory in between, in that I am searching for something interesting to read. But in practice, I am scanning a particular set of headlines chosen by particular editors who have an understanding of relevancy and story quality that is similar to mine. Paid advertising bypasses that judgment. So again, it works against my goal and for the goal of the advertisers. Twitter's in-stream ads are similar to that last case. I have carefully curated list of people whose words I want to read. If I am interested in some brand, I can just follow them. If I might be interested in something not in my feed, I can search for that something or ask people who follow me for help. Ads specifically bypass my meta-editorial judgment in hopes of manipulating my purchasing behaviors. I understand the theory that ads are providing new, relevant information, but I think it's mainly false in practice. We live in an age of effectively infinite free information with everybody able to publish, edit, and meta-edit. I've already selected a group of people who are telling me what I think I need to hear. Twitter is inserting the ads not because people are saying, "Hey, I need more relevant stuff." They're getting it whether they want it or not. If ads were really all that valuable, there would be sites where you could just get lots of ads, an online equivalent of the coupon circular. But ads instead mainly intrude on the content that you actually want, and there's no way to get rid of them, because places like Twitter realize that people don't actually want them.