zlacker

[return to "EU data regulator bans personalised advertising on Facebook and Instagram"]
1. kwanbi+07[view] [source] 2023-11-02 11:29:19
>>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.

◧◩
2. tsimio+q9[view] [source] 2023-11-02 11:42:54
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. konsch+N9[view] [source] 2023-11-02 11:45:21
>>tsimio+q9
I saw an ad a while ago for a piece of software that turned out very beneficial for my business.

I did not know that such software existed.

The ad was good for me and for the seller.

Trade is not a zero sum game.

◧◩◪◨
4. tsimio+Pa[view] [source] 2023-11-02 11:50:18
>>konsch+N9
Trade is not a zero-sum game. Advertising is.

The fact that advertising sometimes actually helps in discovering a product you actually needed is a coincidence. The main point of advertising is to convince people to prefer a product for reasons other than cost/benefit.

Even in your case - did you see the ad and immediately bought the product? Or did you see the ad and then actually went and looked for reviews, competitors, tried it out yourself etc? If you did the former, you almost certainly got scammed at least to some extent. If you did the latter, then it's not the ad that convinced you, it's the reviews/personal trial/price comparison. The ad happened to show you the product existed, but the same could have happened from a mention in a comment or anything else. The ad was not designed to show the product exists, it was designed to convince you it has certain characteristics that the product may or may not actually have.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pembro+Om[view] [source] 2023-11-02 13:00:47
>>tsimio+Pa
> The main point of advertising is to convince people to prefer a product for reasons other than cost/benefit.

This is false. If you've ever run ads before, the best way to get people to convert is to offer a higher cost/benefit than competitors.

How do you think Uber grew from 0 to a 90B market cap? Magical emotional trickery? No.

Uber advertised cheaper, faster, and more convenient rides. The definition of a better cost/benefit. Hence they grew fast. I could list a million examples.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. tsimio+ys[view] [source] 2023-11-02 13:30:16
>>pembro+Om
Uber still calls itself "ride sharing" and is advertising extremely misleading profit numbers and lifestyle promises to drivers. They also advertise better service than taxis, which is very much hit or miss (and vastly different between locations). Their advertising always shows nice clean cars, and that is also dubious.
[go to top]