If I looked up gaming monitors, I’d rather get ads for PC components rather than ads for soap, for example. If I’m getting ads anyways, I’d want ads for stuff I might actually be interested in. Does that make sense?
For better or for worse, these services, which people very clearly do enjoy using, would not exist as free services without advertising. Things have costs and they have to get paid by someone, whether directly by the consumer or by advertisers.
Advertising is one thing. Targeted, personalized, data-harvested advertising is another. The internet can still exist with just normal, non-invasive advertising, you know. It did once.
You can’t just have advertisements for computer parts on a YouTube video about computers? Is that so inefficient that google really needs to just track you across websites as well? I doubt it. What you end up with are advertising blinders. You never see anything new or intriguing. Just more versions of stuff you already have because that’s what you clicked on.
Hell I probably would have bought some weird stuff from advertisements and might have kicked off some new hobbies if google just showed me ads for the stuff craftsmen use in their videos. Instead I get stupid android game ads that are nothing but annoying. If I trusted ads, I’d probably engage with the more.
There’s a fine line of acceptable ads that I think websites stepped over and now everyone hates ads of any kind. They were mostly unobtrusive with the odd banner ad, slowly the whole web started getting more and more aggressive with ads, targeted ads begun and then people wanted rid of them. The cycle of more blocked ads, so they put more ads on, but then more people block, then they add more ads… on and on. Now it’s too hard to convince people to go back to acceptable unobtrusive ads.
When targeted advertising was banned in the Netherlands, NPO (Netherlands Public Omroep) had their various sites switch to advertising based on the contents of the page than the preferences of the user.
It turned out to be more effective to target the content than the user.
Meanwhile, targeted ads IRL:
We kind of noticed you recently bought LAWNMOWER on Amazon. As a LAWNMOWER aficionado, would you like to buy more LAWNMOWER? Take your pick of these four crappy, overpriced ones. We will bill you like they are gold plated and dropship some junk from China, lol.
Also, you added your neighbor on Facebook and her aunt recently went on an esoteric streak. Would you like to buy some tarot cards to talk to your recently deceased grandmother or some crystals that can heal ass cancer? Doctors hate this one trick! Mostly because they hate seeing their desperate patients getting scammed, but they do hate it.
And while we are talking about your nether regions, as a proud owner of a penis you must have thought about enlarging it before, so here are some options …
I actually tend to agree. I value privacy and I hate the idea of Meg-O-Corp selling my data all over the world but on the other hand, I’ve bought some really cool shit that I love off targeted ads
So are targeted ads better than just ads? Yes for the consumer in me, no for the private person
The issue is not the personalised ad, but how Meta decides who seems them.
Today they take a lazy but effective approach of collecting as much data as possible at user level, to draw correlations between the user data and the content of the ad.
If regulation prohibit them from using this approach they’ll be force to innovate or die.
… that kind of sucks actually. I’d rather have personalized ads that just random ass ads.
lol wat
If I looked up gaming monitors, I’d rather get ads for PC components rather than ads for soap, for example. If I’m getting ads anyways, I’d want ads for stuff I might actually be interested in. Does that make sense?
you don’t mind bulk data collection?
you don’t know how to block ads?
For better or for worse, these services, which people very clearly do enjoy using, would not exist as free services without advertising. Things have costs and they have to get paid by someone, whether directly by the consumer or by advertisers.
Advertising is one thing. Targeted, personalized, data-harvested advertising is another. The internet can still exist with just normal, non-invasive advertising, you know. It did once.
Something like Youtube could not exist without pretty extensive advertising or direct payment. The data costs at that scale alone are enormous.
You can’t just have advertisements for computer parts on a YouTube video about computers? Is that so inefficient that google really needs to just track you across websites as well? I doubt it. What you end up with are advertising blinders. You never see anything new or intriguing. Just more versions of stuff you already have because that’s what you clicked on.
Hell I probably would have bought some weird stuff from advertisements and might have kicked off some new hobbies if google just showed me ads for the stuff craftsmen use in their videos. Instead I get stupid android game ads that are nothing but annoying. If I trusted ads, I’d probably engage with the more.
I guess they need their martyrs… carry on
There’s a fine line of acceptable ads that I think websites stepped over and now everyone hates ads of any kind. They were mostly unobtrusive with the odd banner ad, slowly the whole web started getting more and more aggressive with ads, targeted ads begun and then people wanted rid of them. The cycle of more blocked ads, so they put more ads on, but then more people block, then they add more ads… on and on. Now it’s too hard to convince people to go back to acceptable unobtrusive ads.
When targeted advertising was banned in the Netherlands, NPO (Netherlands Public Omroep) had their various sites switch to advertising based on the contents of the page than the preferences of the user.
It turned out to be more effective to target the content than the user.
I get your sentiment, but having personalized ads is just an incentive for a lack of user privacy. If we kill the incentive, we can embrace security.
The most salient point here.
Meanwhile, targeted ads IRL: We kind of noticed you recently bought LAWNMOWER on Amazon. As a LAWNMOWER aficionado, would you like to buy more LAWNMOWER? Take your pick of these four crappy, overpriced ones. We will bill you like they are gold plated and dropship some junk from China, lol.
Also, you added your neighbor on Facebook and her aunt recently went on an esoteric streak. Would you like to buy some tarot cards to talk to your recently deceased grandmother or some crystals that can heal ass cancer? Doctors hate this one trick! Mostly because they hate seeing their desperate patients getting scammed, but they do hate it.
And while we are talking about your nether regions, as a proud owner of a penis you must have thought about enlarging it before, so here are some options …
I’d prefer neither. No ads are best
I actually tend to agree. I value privacy and I hate the idea of Meg-O-Corp selling my data all over the world but on the other hand, I’ve bought some really cool shit that I love off targeted ads
So are targeted ads better than just ads? Yes for the consumer in me, no for the private person
Maybe it will counter people buying stuff they don’t need, in addition to better privacy.
The solution is not personalized ads, but localized ads like what ExplainXKCD does.
I used to love getting American ads on spotify, hehehe, the fuck is a gieko?
The issue is not the personalised ad, but how Meta decides who seems them.
Today they take a lazy but effective approach of collecting as much data as possible at user level, to draw correlations between the user data and the content of the ad.
If regulation prohibit them from using this approach they’ll be force to innovate or die.
[._.]
that’s stupid
It’s disappointing to see how many people are downvoting this because, to them, it’s a “I disagree and think you’re an idiot” button.
Well, actually, I’ve kinda come to expect it here. People aren’t really interested in actual discourse.