| |
| ▲ | 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 4 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 4 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
