7 ms·

> Advertising does not make content free. It merely externalizes the costs in a way that incentivizes malicious or incompetent players to build things like Supe

> Advertising does not make content free. It merely externalizes the costs in a way that incentivizes malicious or incompetent players to build things like Superfish, infect 1 in 20 machines with ad injection malware, and create sites that require unsafe plugins and take twice as many resources to load, quite expensive in terms of bandwidth, power, and stability. That's a good point. Reminds me of "coal energy is cheap"...except for the millions of people it's killing or the billions of dollars paid in healthcare costs. And that's without mentioning coal is usually heavily subsidized by taxpayer money. In the same way advertising that's more and more focused on monitoring everything you do or say online (thanks to all the companies that don't want to enable end-to-end encryption in their IM's - Google, Microsoft, etc) is causing a lot of harm as well.

spydum 11y ago
wait, what? How does custom tailored ads based on your usage patterns harm you? there is an awful lot of adtech hate because its easy to see how poorly implemented adtech can hinder performance, but i dont see how it is malicious in nature.
- ahuth 11y ago
  The fact that an ad is custom tailored to you is concerning in and of itself...
  - manigandham 11y ago
    but people whine when they see ads that are not to their interests either. there is no way to win.
    - thesimpsons1022 11y ago
      advertise me computer shit cuz I'm on HN. don't store all my data and track me and store it in insecure databases which you handover to despots.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        Ad networks only store about 30-60 days of data. Beyond that it's not relevant and sometimes cookies have already been lost so it wont match up anyway. Either way, you're just a randomized ID number with some interest categories attached. If you're worried about your entire history being used, I'd point to social networks like Facebook/Twitter/Google that have far more info, including personal details, and keep it permanently. If you are worried about privacy, read the ToS of those services very careful and either opt-out or delete your information because that's a whole different level to what most ad networks have.
    - Qantourisc 11y ago
      There is: a browser switch/standard: "ask ad-providers to personalize ads" / "use generic ads". Getting anyone to honour that is going to be a big problem though. So we have to implement that on the client side, by privacy protecting measures. (Not sure how at the moment.)
      - manigandham 11y ago
        There is also something that keeps being lost in this: identity and tracking are different things. Opt-out is a preference setting of an identity, and networks store this preference just like they store history and interests. By disabling 3rd party cookies and scripts, it disables the saving of any opt-out status as well, which btw, is actually mandated by certain laws and regulations so it's not all wild west here. For anyone who wants an opt-out, here it is: http://www.youradchoices.com/ http://www.youradchoices.com/
    - throwaway2048 11y ago
      That's quite the false dichotomy you have set yourself up there, i bet it provides all the justification you need to track people without their knowledge or consent.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        That's quite a big inference you made from just a few words. Where am I proposing tracking without knowledge or consent? The dichotomy is either you have generalized ads or they're targeted closely to you. What is false about this?
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        no, your false dichotomy was "either we track people or they complain about irrelevant ads". Note the juxtaposition of imagined agency on part of the user, they supposedly complain a lot about it and want it changed right? So the solution is tracking! Also some vauge language burried 40 pages into a EULA isn't knowledge or consent.
        manigandham 11y ago
        You're attaching your opinions to something I never wrote. If you read my first comment and it's parent again, you'll see that the generalized vs targeted situation is exactly what I'm talking about and no more or less. There is no falsity there, you can have one or the other. How this is actually implemented is not something I ever wrote about nor is HN really the place for it. There are some contextual based options other than tracking user behaviors but at the end of the day, yes tracking is how you get to the most targeted information. This is used in more than just ads by the way, everything from your search results to emails to music/video services to any other place you get recommendations is personalized to you. And the vast majority of the population has time and again shown they have more interest in the end result of better content for them than the collection of anonymized information. Do you have a better solution? How would you provide targeted ads that match people's interests and intent without any tracking? And please don't say you just don't want ads or that sites should just figure out a different way to get paid. This is a serious question because it's not like the industry has just been sitting around wondering, so if you have a better idea it would be helpful and there are lots of companies willing to hear it. Last thing re: EULA. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Legal agreements do not become void because you signed a big contract and then claim it's too long or you didn't actually read it. And yes, signatures are not required for agreement and acceptance to be binding. These documents do not exist for convenience and the long length with all the complex edge case wording is precisely because standard language is so often contested by anyone who suddenly feels like they no longer want it to apply.
manigandham 11y ago
What harm is targeting causing? Users constantly complain that ads are not relevant, so it's either/or...
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Objective harm, I don't know of any. But there's a long list of people out there with a relation of everything I brought on the last few years... Still, they mean me no harm... today... and the data is useless for attacking me... today. Anyway, now I can think about some harm. Since they got their data, ads have become less relevant (yes, those people are extremely incompetent). But that isn't much of a trouble.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Social networks like Facebook keep far more information than any ad network. Most networks usually purge data beyond 30-60 days because it is no longer relevant for targeting. And Facebook doesn't have to scrape any info since people supply it willing. My point: Privacy issues are somewhat pointed at the wrong institutions who really aren't a threat.
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Having something worse around does not make ad networks better. Yes, Facebook is a bigger problem. State level universal surveillance is even bigger. Fighting any one of the three is worthwhile.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        I think you skipped the part that ad networks only keep about 30-60 days of data. Keeping things forever doesn't help when targeting ads to user intent, which changes pretty frequently. It's also anonymized and we don't have personal information like names or addresses. You're also discounting the value it brings to lots of consumers, marketers and website publishers alike to have relevant messages. I really dont understand this argument of privacy as if everyone was living off the grid somewhere. What is the impetus here? And in context of web publishers, if you dont want ads then you'd have to pay for content directly, which is no more private and in fact reveals even more info. The reason you use a credit card and not cash during real transactions is because you care more about value and convenience than privacy, so why are ads online such a target of all this?

spydum 11y ago

wait, what? How does custom tailored ads based on your usage patterns harm you? there is an awful lot of adtech hate because its easy to see how poorly implemented adtech can hinder performance, but i dont see how it is malicious in nature.

ahuth 11y ago
The fact that an ad is custom tailored to you is concerning in and of itself...
- manigandham 11y ago
  but people whine when they see ads that are not to their interests either. there is no way to win.
  - thesimpsons1022 11y ago
    advertise me computer shit cuz I'm on HN. don't store all my data and track me and store it in insecure databases which you handover to despots.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      Ad networks only store about 30-60 days of data. Beyond that it's not relevant and sometimes cookies have already been lost so it wont match up anyway. Either way, you're just a randomized ID number with some interest categories attached. If you're worried about your entire history being used, I'd point to social networks like Facebook/Twitter/Google that have far more info, including personal details, and keep it permanently. If you are worried about privacy, read the ToS of those services very careful and either opt-out or delete your information because that's a whole different level to what most ad networks have.
  - Qantourisc 11y ago
    There is: a browser switch/standard: "ask ad-providers to personalize ads" / "use generic ads". Getting anyone to honour that is going to be a big problem though. So we have to implement that on the client side, by privacy protecting measures. (Not sure how at the moment.)
    - manigandham 11y ago
      There is also something that keeps being lost in this: identity and tracking are different things. Opt-out is a preference setting of an identity, and networks store this preference just like they store history and interests. By disabling 3rd party cookies and scripts, it disables the saving of any opt-out status as well, which btw, is actually mandated by certain laws and regulations so it's not all wild west here. For anyone who wants an opt-out, here it is: http://www.youradchoices.com/ http://www.youradchoices.com/
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    That's quite the false dichotomy you have set yourself up there, i bet it provides all the justification you need to track people without their knowledge or consent.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      That's quite a big inference you made from just a few words. Where am I proposing tracking without knowledge or consent? The dichotomy is either you have generalized ads or they're targeted closely to you. What is false about this?
      - throwaway2048 11y ago
        no, your false dichotomy was "either we track people or they complain about irrelevant ads". Note the juxtaposition of imagined agency on part of the user, they supposedly complain a lot about it and want it changed right? So the solution is tracking! Also some vauge language burried 40 pages into a EULA isn't knowledge or consent.
        manigandham 11y ago
        You're attaching your opinions to something I never wrote. If you read my first comment and it's parent again, you'll see that the generalized vs targeted situation is exactly what I'm talking about and no more or less. There is no falsity there, you can have one or the other. How this is actually implemented is not something I ever wrote about nor is HN really the place for it. There are some contextual based options other than tracking user behaviors but at the end of the day, yes tracking is how you get to the most targeted information. This is used in more than just ads by the way, everything from your search results to emails to music/video services to any other place you get recommendations is personalized to you. And the vast majority of the population has time and again shown they have more interest in the end result of better content for them than the collection of anonymized information. Do you have a better solution? How would you provide targeted ads that match people's interests and intent without any tracking? And please don't say you just don't want ads or that sites should just figure out a different way to get paid. This is a serious question because it's not like the industry has just been sitting around wondering, so if you have a better idea it would be helpful and there are lots of companies willing to hear it. Last thing re: EULA. I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Legal agreements do not become void because you signed a big contract and then claim it's too long or you didn't actually read it. And yes, signatures are not required for agreement and acceptance to be binding. These documents do not exist for convenience and the long length with all the complex edge case wording is precisely because standard language is so often contested by anyone who suddenly feels like they no longer want it to apply.

manigandham 11y ago

What harm is targeting causing? Users constantly complain that ads are not relevant, so it's either/or...

marcosdumay 11y ago
Objective harm, I don't know of any. But there's a long list of people out there with a relation of everything I brought on the last few years... Still, they mean me no harm... today... and the data is useless for attacking me... today. Anyway, now I can think about some harm. Since they got their data, ads have become less relevant (yes, those people are extremely incompetent). But that isn't much of a trouble.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Social networks like Facebook keep far more information than any ad network. Most networks usually purge data beyond 30-60 days because it is no longer relevant for targeting. And Facebook doesn't have to scrape any info since people supply it willing. My point: Privacy issues are somewhat pointed at the wrong institutions who really aren't a threat.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Having something worse around does not make ad networks better. Yes, Facebook is a bigger problem. State level universal surveillance is even bigger. Fighting any one of the three is worthwhile.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      I think you skipped the part that ad networks only keep about 30-60 days of data. Keeping things forever doesn't help when targeting ads to user intent, which changes pretty frequently. It's also anonymized and we don't have personal information like names or addresses. You're also discounting the value it brings to lots of consumers, marketers and website publishers alike to have relevant messages. I really dont understand this argument of privacy as if everyone was living off the grid somewhere. What is the impetus here? And in context of web publishers, if you dont want ads then you'd have to pay for content directly, which is no more private and in fact reveals even more info. The reason you use a credit card and not cash during real transactions is because you care more about value and convenience than privacy, so why are ads online such a target of all this?