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
> 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.

That's all fine and dandy, I think. The problem starts to become a bit bigger when suddenly everyone in your household starts to see "chlamydia medication" ads everywhere they go online based on some message you sent a month ago to a friend.

> 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.

I'm not sure that's so obvious as you make it seem. There are lots of long running websites that don't survive on personalized ads created based on behavioural profiles created by data harvesters.

>>capabl+O8
We have no reason to assume that FB is using message content to target ads.

>>konsch+t9
its facebook....assuming anything but the worst handling of user data is beyond foolish

>>theway+fa
This comment actually is a symptom of another problem. If you ask a random person if big ad tech should collect personal data in exchange for providing social media for free with ads, they would say no. But then immideately they would also walk into a Walgreens/CVS (pharmacies in the US) and the first thing they are asked at the cashier counter is their phone number and almost everyone just provides it with no second thought. Of course they get some loyalty member discount or whatever, but I don't now why they assume big retailer isn't sellimg the data / going to sell their data in the future. Perhaps just comes down to PR. If big ad tech is so bad and can't be trusted, wonder why no one assumes Google maps could sell your driving/over-speeding data to insurance companies? It's almost like we are told company a, b, c are bad, we haven't put more thought into it and are rejoiced seeing any negative headline about them. Nothing beyond.