[jedberg]

I'm fine, thanks. :)

The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about. In that regard, I appreciate good ads that tell me about things I would want to know about and didn't already.

For example, some of the ads I get are for live shows (back in the before times). These are live shows that I enjoy going to, but would never have known about, because I don't know where to look for them. Having it pushed at me helps me.

[switch007]

> The purpose of ads is to inform people of things they wouldn't otherwise know about

That's cute. I've never seen an ad for a wikipedia page though.

The real purpose of ads is to convince people to buy things that they otherwise might not have, so that companies can make a profit.

Take the https://www.theguardian.com/. I've got adverts for:

- an electric toothbrush. I already have one. But surely the new model is better!11!

- London apartments. I live 170 miles away and have no desire ever to live in London. But maybe I should because London is so amazing!11!!

- Remitly ("send money to India online"). I do not know anyone in India and have no need to send money there.

- "70% off" "Store Clothing", whatever the hell that is. I have plenty of clothes. But maybe I need more and to be more fashionable!11!!

[jonas21]

So what you're saying is that better ad targeting would improve your experience?

[Dylan16807]

"Better" in the same sense as a "sufficiently smart compiler"? Sure.

But it shows that access to state-of-the-art targeting isn't helping at all. So right now it's clearly not worth a privacy tradeoff.

[x4j91]

Better ad targeting definately can improve the user experience ... but the path to get there is insidious ...

[6510]

The entire ad database would have to be client side with payments per product sold. (I'm only half joking)

[jedberg]

The example I gave elsewhere are ads for live shows (back when that was a thing). I like live shows and sometimes the ads are the only way I learn about new ones.

[est31]

Not a fan of targeted ads, but which ad to show you is only half of the part. The other part is tracking conversions, aka finding out if you actually bought some item after you saw the ad.

Also, ads don't have to work for everyone. If they work for some folks, it's already profitable for the platforms. And they do work.

[fingerlocks]

I would say tracking conversions is the most important part. There’s always a lot of attention on targeting because it’s user-facing, creepy, and strikes a nerve with the HN crowd. But anyone that has spent five minutes working with their marketing people or implementing adTech would know the true story.

“Are these ads effective? Should we spend more money on them?” Without conversion data the answer is one big shrug emoji.

I don’t believe most companies in the tech industry care about tracking/fingerprinting users for the sake of collecting & reselling their data. First hand experience, I’m just not ever seeing that. They just want to know if their ads are working or not.

[est31]

> I would say tracking conversions is the most important part. There’s always a lot of attention on targeting because it’s user-facing, creepy, and strikes a nerve with the HN crowd.

It doesn't help that people try to sell conversion as something that benefits the ad viewer because if it increases sales, it must also be good for the people doing the buying or something like that. That argument of "better ads" then gets easily misunderstood as targeting but it is only indirectly about that.

[6510]

CPC scales with how well ads work. Seller and viewer benefit from working ads. It seems ad platforms benefit most from ads that don't work.

[jedberg]

Ad platforms benefit from ads working because then advertisers spend more money on the platform.

[santraginean]

> The real purpose of ads is to convince people to buy things that they otherwise might not have

In particular, things they otherwise might not have and don't need enough to look for actively on their own.

[GeekyBear]

The reality of ads is that you can target them via the content of the page without all that reprehensible spying on people.

It's just less profitable.

[qwertox]

This is specially true for any kind of news websites or blogs, where it's obvious what content a specific URL contains. The fact alone that a visitor is on that page makes him the best candidate for a targeted ad which refers to the content of the page.

No need to have over a dozen of trackers on that page so that advertisers create a profile of you.

[Spooky23]

The problem is the audience is global as well as the content in many cases.

My local Hearst paper operates a templates website full of crap trackers and ads that are brokered at a central point. They aren’t selling the inventory with local sales managers etc. To keep costs down, everything is aggregated.

[ksec]

On HN there seems to be a notion that ALL Ads are bad. No Ads should be allowed. And yet at the same time they are enjoying all the free tools and website build upon this business model.

And then also the notion that ALL data gathered intrude privacy. And somehow anyone on the Internet should be anonymous, may be that is not even the right word, may be invisible could be used to better describe it.

Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain language, and repeatedly.”

There should be a middle ground somewhere. Not all Ads are bad. I love useful Ads, but I hate bad ads, whether that is placement or the actual ads itself. And I know people gets to discover new Games, Clothes, Shows, or other product they like through these ads.

It cant be an all or nothing world. Which the Internet in general likes to encourage, and there is no middle ground. We need to start looking at Ads as part of UX, and not just money / target optimising tools.

[lowdose]

> ALL Ads are bad. No Ads should be allowed. And yet at the same time they are enjoying all the free tools and website build upon this business model.

And then also the notion that ALL data gathered intrude privacy. And somehow anyone on the Internet should be anonymous, may be that is not even the right word, may be invisible could be used to better describe it.

Let's name it the Thiel paradox. Maybe then this flavor of cognitive dissonance is better captured and told further.