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.
> 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).
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.
In order for their to be fraud you would have be a party in some economic transaction. In the case of advertising the parties are the ad provider and the content provider. Are you suggesting the content provider is being defrauded? How so? An advertisement which causes a browser to make thousands of request does not necessarily denote fraud unless the contract the ad provider and content provider had prohibits it.
There are more parties including the consumer and the ad buyer. Ad fraud almost always means the ad buyer being defrauded by buying digital advertising that is not executed according to contract terms, if at all.
In my comment the content provider is what you termed the ad buyer. When you say consumer, who are you referring to? A person who visits a website with an advertisement? If so, they are not a party involved in an economic transaction.
> Ad fraud almost always means the ad buyer being defrauded by buying digital advertising that is not executed according to contract terms, if at all
If this is what you mean by fraud, why do you say there are no consequences for the violation of the contract? The ad buyer can seek recourse through a civil suit. Additionally the ad buyer can switch to a different advertisement provider.
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.