zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
I know in HN there is a big "personalized advertising" is bad sentiment, but I don't get what the problem is.

I mean, if I am looking for a notebook, I rather have FB/IG (or Google or whatever), show me adds of a notebook that I might end up buying, instead of the generic poker/porn adds that we had on the beginning of the internet.

It is almost impossible to have a free internet without ads. So on one side, people want everything free, on the other side, we don't want ads, so there is a clear problem here.

Can someone explain to me what the problem is? Honest question. Thanks.

>>kwanbi+07
Ads are almost universally trying to convince you to do something you shouldn't do. At best, they will convince you to but a subpar product, at worst they'll convince you to buy a product you don't need at all.

Personalized ads are better at convincing you personally, so they are worse for you than random ads, or even than content-based ads. Additionally, they depend on building a detailed profile of you, which most people are fundamentally uncomfortable with when they are aware of.

>>tsimio+q9
This is just plain false. At best ads will inform you about the existence of valuable products, services and opportunities that can make your life better. Every business must communicate with potential customers. Personalized ads are much more likely to be something you might want than the generic billboard on the side of the road.

>>blulul+Sb
Businesses can communicate in ways that are not advertising.

Ads are not trying to inform. They virtually universally make claims that are pushed as far as possible without breaking false advertising laws. Ads never ever state limitations, for example - even though any honest information would.