| |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm on the other side of the divide from you. However, mine and many other folks' position is not preferring untargeted intrusive annoying ads over targeted intrusive annoying ads. It's preferring almost zero ads with maybe the rare, non intrusive easily avoidable ad on certain appropriate websites[1]. That is why we aggressively use ad blockers and go to great lengths to avoid the status quo. [1] a shopping website having a _single_ banner on the home page announcing an ongoing sale for HP laptops is OK. However, if I search for lenovo laptops and I see a HP laptop as the first "sponsored" result....(Looking at you amazon). And about tracking, I absolutely don't want my librarian running to my travel agent telling him I recently looked up france travel guides. The digital equivalent of this happens daily to everybody. It's simply a no-no for me, there can never be a justification for it. The fact is that if you ban these two classes of practices, the whole of ad tech comes crashing down. I hope everyday for this to happen. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > That is why we aggressively use ad blockers and go to great lengths to avoid the status quo. And so you're paying for the content you're reading as well? | | |
| ▲ | troupo 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Ad-supported does not mean "tacking your every movement and collecting all your private data across the entirety of the internet throughout your entire adult life, and selling that data to the highest bidder" | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Usual the news publishers don't sell user data because they have so little of it. However external data providers are used to retarget specific audience segments on said publisher's users. If you want to sell ad impressions at reasonable rates, you'll need to provide audience segment targeting, otherwise the ad performance will be too low for brands to continue buying it at previous rates. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 1. Those extraordinary claims need some extraordinary evidence In a comment elsewhere in the discussion: accuracy of targeting is worse than random sampling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43719816 2. Ads have existed for as long as commerce existed. Google became a trillion dollar ad behemoth before it started collected everyone's data by simply offering contextual ads. Literally nothing in the ads business requires you to collect and sell so much of user data that it would even make Stasi pause and re-think. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > In a comment elsewhere in the discussion: accuracy of targeting is worse than random sampling https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43719816 I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Among the reasons, they don't differentiate desktop and mobile traffic which is a massive measurement problem. They also use Nielsen DAR which is in itself a heuristic method of determining what age and gender a user is and thus is not a great pick as an oracle. The study also does not mention click and bounce rates which are good proxies for targeting success. Beyond the performance, the marketing and sales aspect of targeted advertising is also a strong selling point, no matter the performance. > Ads have existed for as long as commerce existed. Google became a trillion dollar ad behemoth before it started collected everyone's data by simply offering contextual ads. No, it didn't. > Literally nothing in the ads business requires you to collect and sell so much of user data that it would even make Stasi pause and re-think. It does because contextual advertisement does not provide enough volumes and lower performance (lower click rate, higher bounce rates, lower conversion rates). Example: If 1/100 people read hockey-related content and out of those people, 1/100 pages read is about hockey, it means that you're reaching about 1/10000 page views. Now if you do implement user tracking, you're available inventory is 1/100 page views. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > I could provide a long answer but the gist of it is that the study is flawed. Show me a non-flawed study that shows you need vast amounts of user data and tracking, for each user, throughout their lifetime to deliver ads > No, it didn't. Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. > It does because contextual advertisement does not provide enough volumes and lower performance Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Example: Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent, and the outcome is indistinguishable from random noise, are you more effective? Example: if targeted ads are found to be somewhat more effective than contextual ads, is the lifelong invasive tracking of every user action a preferred tradeoff? (It's quite telling how people defending targeted advertising never address the elephant in the room) | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, yes it did. The skyrocketing revenue is attributable to increased internet usage across the globe, and Google outright owning a large chunk of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > Example: if you collect and sell vast amounts of sensitive user data without user's consent The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms and passed in the programmatic advertisement auction chain in the form of TC strings. The fact that you don't know this is also quite telling. > [...] and the outcome is indistinguishable from random noise, are you more effective? But it isn't, and if you are making claims, please provided sources. Why would brands and agencies pay additional fees for data if they would provide no uplift? > Example: if targeted ads are found to be somewhat more effective than contextual ads, is the lifelong invasive tracking of every user action a preferred tradeoff? Are users prepared to pay for the difference? | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Are users prepared to pay for the difference? If a service cannot be offered at a certain scale without such practices, it should not be offered at that scale. Before you start talking about how this enabled google's innovations, remember that the path we have taken to our current innovations is not the only path that could have been taken. By correctly squashing out immoral avenues like today's ad tech, we lay the path for the same innovations to happen taking a different, more ethical path. Sure, it could be that that would take more time and certain innovations would be delayed by an entire era[1], but note that we could also be going 5x faster than today w.r.t TPUs or whatever if we enslaved and forced enough people to work for Google's ML infrastructure team and nobody/nothing else. But we don't do that, do we? [1] on the flip side, certain innovations may also come an era early | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > If a service cannot be offered at a certain scale without such practices, it should not be offered at that scale. That sounds like an opinion and one tha isn't shared by the hundreds of millions of users Google has o it's services. The worst part is that I completely agree that advertisement and at the very least targeted advertisement, shouldn't exist. Problem is that users prefer not paying in cash so companies find alternatives. If advertisement or privacy really mattered for users, we would already have alternative Facebook, YouTube, etc, but it isn't and so we don't. | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, I don't think most people really understand the way ad-tech supports these services. I wager if you asked a few lay men they wouldn't even know google is an ad company(apart from YouTube ads) | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 4 days ago | parent [-] | | A few years ago, a large publisher (Persgroep) in the Netherlands made a study comparing user preferences between two advertisement solutions, one would be a traditional personal data-based targeting solution and one privacy preserving solution (SOLID). User ended up preferring the classic version, even when they were informed of its inner workings. | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | "publishing"
They are an ad company. "Ad company does survey confirming that people like their ads and definitely don't want an alternative" is not the win you think it is. Are you hearing yourself? | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well I seem to be the only bringing proof and understanding into this debate. You're free to step in at any time with actual viable alternatives, studies, etc. May I remind you once more that the possibility to create this magical Internet world you guys live in is already there but somehow nobody builds or uses it. Maybe there is a good reason for this? | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Maybe there is a good reason for this? Yes, the unethical path is easier and more importantly, faster to take. If it is not explicitly disallowed in the system, it will be taken. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I would say that it is the most popular path among readers that is the winning one in the end. | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Again, if you let the unethical ones exist, they will win. > Popular among users Google is popular due to their superior search capability/really good workspace product and of course youtube is brilliant. The whole point is to try and achieve these same things while also maintaining ethics, even if it takes a century longer. Like I said in a previous thread, you wouldn't enslave people to work on Google's TPUs, would you? Even if it would help us achieve AGI in one week. You can't say, let the users decide, when there is information asymmetry. No one using a phone today is aware of the slavery in the rare metal industry in Congo etc, as much as they are aware of the number of megapixels in their camera. If you are really in the "let the users decide" camp, then there must be 100% information symmetry. Add to the iPhone box a detailed report of every single part of the supply chain. Add a video of the slave in the mines, not just the PPE suit in the high-tech-looking lab. Google search should market themselves as selling your ad information to various businesses. You can't let businesses push the positive side of their business more than the negative side, cause an information asymmetry, and then say that users should be allowed to decide. If the negative side of the business is hidden in a T&C document, then the positive side should also be forced to be in a T&C. They should be on equal footing. This would mean effectively banning marketing. Which of the alternatives do you prefer? Back to the point, If you disallowed intrusive/targeted ads, then purely ad supported journalism would be unsustainable, thereby forcing businesses to charge for most of their news. Copy this ditto for other industries. Doing good things like this could also naturally facilitate other desirable things such as a simple payment system for internet services and remove other blockers needed for the system to work, which we don't have today despite all the trillion dollar tech companies. Why? They have the brightest minds, but the economic incentives need to be set exactly right. Today, those bright minds are being used to add dark patterns to user interfaces, deceive or even outright lie to users, and doing cunning things like tracking my location using their Wi-fi SSID even when I explicitly turned off location. These tracking systems didn't come out of nowhere, nor are they easy to build. They exist because the incentives let them, caused them to exist. If the incentives instead caused more ethical businesses to exist, the same human/otherwise capital would be converted to more ethical systems. |
|
| |
| ▲ | troupo 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > May I remind you once more that the possibility to create this magical Internet world you guys live in Ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking > but somehow nobody builds or uses it. Maybe there is a good reason for this? Yes. Because unrestricted unlimited capitalism will always exploit any possible niche and avenue, and people will cheer it on until it's too late. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, it is unlimited capitalism that prevents people from paying for their online newspaper subscriptions? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | troupo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Before you start talking about how this enabled google's innovations To whit: Most the big projects Google started or acquired, and that are still available today, Google started or acquired before targeted advertising. Google itself, Docs, Youtube, Cloud, Android... Targeted advertising is not a requirement for innovation |
| |
| ▲ | troupo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The users do give consent and this is handled by Consent Management Platforms No. The users are tricked into giving "consent" through a plethora of dark patterns. When dark patterns are removed, users refuse to give the information > But it isn't, and if you are making claims, please provided sources. Have you provided sources for any of your claims? > Are users prepared to pay for the difference? Still waiting for any source of your claims that: - targeted ads are more effective - ads require lifelong collection of any and all user data - that without pervasive and invasive tracking ads are somehow prohibitively expensive | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > No. The users are tricked into giving "consent" through a plethora of dark patterns. Well you're free to bring this up to the various data privacy national organisations in the EU. But I see that we're moving goalposts. > Have you provided sources for any of your claims? One of many available links on Google: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162... > ads require lifelong collection of any and all user data Data collected has an expiration date. This is also part of GDPR compliance. > that without pervasive and invasive tracking ads are somehow prohibitively expensive We're now going in circles, but essentially you're ad performance (brand attribution, clicks and conversion) will determine your expected purchase price per thousand impressions (CPM). If your targeting isn't competitive, your inventory will not be bought or at a lower price. This already happens for Safari and Firefox impressions. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Well you're free to bring this up to the various data privacy national organisations in the EU. > But I see that we're moving goalposts. We are not moving goalposts. You literally claimed that users give consent to data collection. No, they do not. They are tricked into giving this consent because that's the only way ad industry can obtain consent to livelong invasive tracking. > Have you provided sources for any of your claims? > One of many available links on Google: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162... Let's see what the paper says: --- start quote --- Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments (i.e., 23,407 out of 45,440 audience segments on the right-hand side of the dashed vertical line in Figure D2 in Online Appendix D) require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. Approximately half of the audience segments on Spotify require a higher increase in CTR0 for the advertiser, suggesting they might be less profitable than no-targeting. -- By highlighting the questionable profitability of many audience segments, this paper aims to help advertisers decide whom to target. We suggest using our model to calculate the break-even performance for many segments and then order these segments by break-even performance from smallest to largest. ... our findings also reveal that untargeted campaigns may yield higher profits. Our proposed model has limitations, as it relies on inputs that may not be readily available to all advertisers --- end quote --- So. Questionable profitability, untargeted yield higher profits unless you ignificantly increase performance of targeted ads, a suggestion of an unproven model relying on data that may not be available to advertisers. Yes, this truly is a paper that proves the amazing great efficiency of targeted advertisement, especially when offset against lifelong invasive tracking and wholesale trading of user data. > Data collected has an expiration date. This is also part of GDPR compliance. 1. GDPR isn't available worldwide 2. Ad industry claims "legitimate uses" for a bunch of data and end up with "oh, we'll maintain your precise geolocation for 12 years" https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541 > If your targeting isn't competitive, your inventory will not be bought or at a lower price. So what? > This already happens for Safari and Firefox impressions. Good. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > They are tricked into giving this consent because that's the only way ad industry can obtain consent to livelong invasive tracking. No, they're not tricked. There are obvious cookie banners with the possibility to see the list of vendors and reasons for collecting the data and consent completely, partially or reject. I'm sorry, if you don't know how advertisement works for news publishers there's not much to talk about. > Our simulation study reveals that more than 50% of audience segments (i.e., 23,407 out of 45,440 audience segments on the right-hand side of the dashed vertical line in Figure D2 in Online Appendix D) require a minimum increase in performance larger than 700% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. ...we find that more than half of the audience segments require an increase in CTR0, CR0, and m0 larger than 100% to be at least as profitable as no-targeting. This might be correct for Spotify, however it isn't for news publishers. Data costs usually represent 10% to 25% of media cost, which means that the uplift of targeting should be at least these values which are nowhere near 100%. > 1. GDPR isn't available worldwide Sure, but since a lot of sites have European users they usually stay in line of the strictest guidelines for all users which is generally the GDPR. > Ad industry claims "legitimate uses" for a bunch of data and end up with "oh, we'll maintain your precise geolocation for 12 years" Not "ad industry", "one bad adtech actor", but we're already used to incorrect takes. If the legitimate uses are invalid (which I believe that they probably are) they can and most likely will be fought in court. > So what? So journalists don't get paid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope, if they are so unscrupulously willing to employ dark patterns, I can get pretty competitive :-) | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah, so a hypocrite I see. | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 5 days ago | parent [-] | | ??? im not talking about piracy here - I pay for multiple streaming services and yt music provided the resulting experience is ad free. But ads on your news/shopping website? Regardless of if I pay or not I'm gonna get upsells and ads. That simply does not fly. In any case, intrusive ads are a no-no. If your platform utilizes intrusive ads, I have no remorse for any loss incurred on your part. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > But ads on your news/shopping website? "What, paying for MY news? How dare they" | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Stop being insanely obtuse. I stated clearly: >> Regardless of if I pay or not I'm gonna get upsells and ads. I'll say it again for your ad-tech addled brain only rivalling vomit-inducing people like prabhakar raghavan: If there was an option to have zero, zero, even minutely intrusive ads/tracking, then I will be willing to pay a price for it. If this is not an option, then I have zero remorse for your wasted efforts/loss of revenue. Tell me _one_ news website today offering this feature? I will pay for it. https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001712553-Ads-... > Advertising remains a critical part of our business model of supporting independent journalism, as such, we do not offer ad-free subscriptions. Even the ones that _do_ have a half-decent, "ad-free", paid option, if you actually pay and visit their website, you will be sure to see ads related events in the network tab. Disqualified. For the case of tracking, like I (again) stated above: if my library goes over to my travel agency telling them what travel guides I have been looking at, I have zero remorse for the library's revenue stream, even if they satisfy all of the requirements above (such as offering a completely intrusive-ad-free paid subscription). If there are alternatives that don't indulge in these completely unethical practices, I would love to, and I do, use them. However, there are exactly zero news websites like that, so it leaves me with no choice but to "steal" whenever I read an article. Off-topic, but I can't help snort at: > independent journalism Finally, if your company ever does something like using Wi-fi SSIDs as an alternative when I intentionally disable location services in my phone, then it goes in the bin. No recourse, sorry. | | |
| ▲ | LunaSea 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > If there was an option to have zero, zero, even minutely intrusive ads/tracking, then I will be willing to pay a price for it. If this is not an option, then I have zero remorse for your wasted efforts/loss of revenue. This is already the case for most newspapers. Helas, most users prefer the free but ad-ridled version. > Even the ones that _do_ have a half-decent, "ad-free", paid option, if you actually pay and visit their website, you will be sure to see ads related events in the network tab. Disqualified. You should report this to the publishers. This is usually and genuinely not what they would like to happen if they provide a paid version. > For the case of tracking, like I (again) stated above: if my library goes over to my travel agency telling them what travel guides I have been looking at, I have zero remorse for the library's revenue stream, even if they satisfy all of the requirements above (such as offering a completely intrusive-ad-free paid subscription). Most of the time the data itself will never be sold. What happens is that a brand or ad agency will buy pre-filtered traffic or ask the publisher to operate a campaign on specific user segments. This means that the data never leaves the site that collected it. There are of course external companies that become third-party data providers as a business model like credit card companies or telecoms. But even then, data providers try to protect their own data by operating campaigns themselves rather than selling the data. > If there are alternatives that don't indulge in these completely unethical practices, I would love to, and I do, use them. However, there are exactly zero news websites like that, so it leaves me with no choice but to "steal" whenever I read an article. Just as an added piece of context, due to publishers surviving (and I really mean it) thanks to advertisement income, they also have little in-house tech talent that can actually make sur that things like "absolutely 0-tracking if it's a paying user" is correctly implemented. Do what you will with this information. > Finally, if your company ever does something like using Wi-fi SSIDs as an alternative. Only mobile apps might have the SSID (and only with granular user consent on app install). Websites do not have access to this information. | | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > This is already the case for most newspapers. I just gave an example of the NYTs stance on the position. Can you find me a newspaper that doesn't say that? > Pre-filtered segments Which party has the information is not of relevance. That any one has it at all is already a problem. I don't care if it's advertiser sending the newspaper ["football shoes"] and the newspaper matching it with the fact that I'm interested in ["football"]. If I pay, I want none of that at all. Not even one side of the process should take place. > Only mobile apps Yes yes.. it was an example. Again, stop being obtuse and missing the point. You and I both know the extent to which browser fingerprinting and other techniques are used. Not to mention the larger along the news websites also have mobile apps where they employ similar techniques. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | throw-qqqqq 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think that is a false dichotomy. Targeting does not necessarily lead to fewer ads. I am old enough to remember the world before targeted ads (and internet), and back then I did not see more ads than today - on the contrary! | |
| ▲ | sidewndr46 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "useful to them" - do I really need to know how much one day dental implants cost in 2025? | | |
|
