[manigandham]

This happens because it's a business problem with perverse incentives across the entire advertising supply chain - and no amount of technical solutions will solve it.

It's the same issue with every anti-fraud vendor and the new hyped blockchain nonsense. Until buyers and agencies vote with their dollars, nothing will change.

[avaer]

The thing is people are voting with their dollars, but it's on credit.

People don't want to pay for "free" content, and "free" software. So instead they pay with malware, insane data charges, markups to pay for ads, markups to pay for dealing with fraud, the indefinite privacy tax of their data, markups extracted from monopoly positions, and much more.

The problem is people don't see all of these exorbitant fees, but they see that dollar in their wallet.

[manigandham]

I'm not talking about consumers but advertisers who are the clients and the media agencies they hire to produce and execute these media campaigns.

The internet has increased efficiency and lowered prices but this also has an effect of amplifying any misaligned incentives - so now agencies which are bonused on clicks will deliver cheap clicks, whether it's actually producing sales or not.

[thecrazyone]

What's your point? If they don't drive sales, they'll stop advertising or go out of business.

Not sure what's your concern here

[manigandham]

Marketing is a 12 figure industry and billions are spent with little accountability and incentives that drive bad intrusive ads that break privacy and extract data at all costs.

That's my concern, as stated in my original comment describing why this situation exists and why companies working on purely technical anti-fraud measures will accomplish much of nothing.

[ancap]

> Marketing is a 12 figure industry and billions are spent with little accountability

Isn't it wonderful that they could improve the human standard of living to the measurement of billions of dollars? Everyone who makes a profit in a free market system did so by improving the lives of their fellow human beings, else no exchange would ever take place.

But I really don't get the "little accountability" comment. Accountable to who?

> incentives that drive bad intrusive ads that break privacy and extract data at all costs.

This is where things get hairy. In historical times privacy is only a secondary right which stems from one's primary right to property. Nowadays, people are erroneously trying to elevate privacy to be viewed as a primary right and that has very dangerous implications which undermine the primary right of property. (I believe many of the advocates know this and are purposefully using privacy as a means to undermined property rights).

[manigandham]

What are you even talking about? Yes privacy today is and should be a primary right. We are no longer in "historical times" and privacy is implied in the 4th amendment as well as integral to many recent laws. This is also far away from what this post and thread is discussing:

Programmatic digital advertising today is full of fraud and terrible ad experiences because buyers of such advertising and the entire supply chain is too complex, has no direct accountability to sales or business results, is incentivized by localized myopic metrics and lacks any governmental regulation or consequences at all.

[thecrazyone]

Well if you don't pay, how's the supplier of said free service going to survive.

Note: I'm not supporting viruses and malware, here in my argument