[Yetanfou]

Are you serious here? Working in AdTech - which does (or at least should) translate to "working on undoing the good which used to be the public internet" - you most certainly realise, and possibly salivate over the breadth and width of Facebook's means to profile 'net users, whether those be actual Facebook (as in "Facebook the site, Instagram, WhatsApp and whatever other company they reeled in") users or otherwise. For those who want to keep their exposure to AdTech as small as possible it is adamant not to feed the beast if this can be avoided. That means not using any of their products and blocking access to any of their properties. It means not believing a word of what Facebook says about keeping WhatsApp apart from their other properties as they have shown time and again that they can not be trusted - something which is endemic when it concerns anything related to AdTech, probably because the lure of all that user data just waiting to be exploited is simply too big.

While this might not work as an argument to convince friends and family to stay away from Facebook (et al) it is the actual reason for doing so. It is just that the argument smacks too much of politics and zealotry to get people to change their ways.

To answer the original poster's question I'd suggest to simply use something else and give those friends and family your contact info on that other thing. There are plenty of options out there, all with their own pros and cons. The easiest sell will probably be Telegram since it offers a far superior user experience over WhatsApp, especially for those who use more than a single device. That this implies that Telegram stores user data and as such theoretically could do all sorts of nefarious things with it is just as interesting to the average user as the fact that Facebook will have been abusing WhatsApp data for years now, most people simply don't care. Telegram now also offers video calls by the way which takes away the last advantage WhatsApp had.

[andreygrehov]

I am 100% serious. I get the "ad-free public internet" nostalgia, but ads is an inevitable component of our economy. The good old internet was good only because it was something new and unknown. The very first newspapers did not have ads. 100 years after, Benjamin Franklin pulled the trigger and started a column for advertisers to promote their products and services. Ads are valuable. They can make a huge difference for your business. Ads are not going anywhere in the near future.

Working for AdTech doesn't mean undoing the good. Given that the internet is pretty young, there is nothing to undo. Working for AdTech means improving what's already out there.

Don't get me wrong. I hate ads. Who doesn't? Everyone in AdTech uses ad blocker, such is life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But, every time I launch a new project, I need some form of advertisement. It can be be Show HN, Product Hunt or Google PPC. But I need ads. You need ads. And if you don't need them now, you most likely will in the future.

I obviously don't know everything about AdTech and I'm sure there are a ton of shady players, exploiting your software/hardware to sneak some ads in (reputable firms do not appreciate such behavior). But from what I do know, the kind of data being shared by apps is so boring that it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs. Which is why I asked, what exactly is being shared by WhatsApp? I honestly don't give a shit about Facebook knowing my gender, age, the city I'm from, etc. I'm 34, male, living in New York. Now what? In contrast, if WhatsApp shares your messages and files with third-party companies, then that's for sure a shady shit that affect your security. A whole separate conversation.

[fsflover]

Ads and personalized ads are two very different things. Duckduckgo works fine on the former.

Personalized ads put you into an information buble, collect your personal data and manipulate you into buying what you don't need, harming you and the environment. See also: https://www.socialcooling.com/.

Also, what Facebook is doing is beyond unethical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498.

[Yetanfou]

Reputable AdTech firms is comparable to responsible tobacco firms, both are peddling unhealthy goods, both try to whitewash their image by claiming to be above the fray. Also, it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs - no, just no. First of all I can only assume that doctors are more likely to read publications which are related to their profession and as such can be targeted for advertising there, just like fishermen will read publications related to fishing and as such can be targeted. Ads on Javascript IDEs belong in publications related to programming, ads about vaping belong in the dustbin or, if you insist, in lifestyle magazines and similar vacuous outlets. There is no need to follow those doctors around to pester them with ads related to their profession when they turn to the daily news, just like those fishermen don't need to be targeted when they happen to open an unrelated site. In short, there is no need for active profiling. Since AdTech insists on doing this anyway it is in users best interest to a) make sure there is as little data to be gathered by AdTech firms and b) to make sure they don't see any ad, period. You - as in the AdTech industry - made your bed, now lie in it.

[andreygrehov]

> In short, there is no need for active profiling.

Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.

> b) to make sure they don't see any ad, period.

Nobody likes ads, but there are millions of businesses with ads being the only revenue source. No ads - no service. It's not because site owners want to show you ads, it's because they cannot sustain without not showing you these ads.

[fsflover]

> Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.

Apart from the targeted ads there exist context-based ads (just like in the newspapers from your example). Show me a scientific proof that the former work better.

[Yetanfou]

> Active profiling is needed so that tobacco ads do not show up in your kids' newsfeed.

Tobacco ads should only be in publications targeted at tobacco consumers, i.e. "Smokers Digest" or whatever. Yes, that limits their exposure. That is a feature, not a bug.

On the "no ads, no service" remark I know of plenty of useful sites - this one being one of them - which get their funding from different sources. For some - me being one of them - this probably goes for the majority of sites they frequent, others might fare differently. The thing is, it is not just the fact that there are ads which turn people to ad blockers, it is the fact that there are those AdTech companies doing their best to syphon up their data so as to badger them with ads wherever they go. Had ads been like they were in magazines, i.e. anonymous and related to the subject matter, there would have been far less incentive to block them. That bird has flown a long time ago though, something for which AdTech is partly responsible next to the fact that ad servers have been used to spread malware and that the ads themselves went from simple banners to screen-dominating blinking screeching monstrosities.

[Krasnol]

> it's actually in a user's best interest to allow the data to be shared. Otherwise doctors will see ads about vaping and fishers will see ads about the latest JavaScript IDEs

Who the hell do you think you are to decide what is in my best interest? You are attempting to STEAL my attention. This is abusive behaviour. I don't want this!

Also:

If I go on a page for fishing stuff, the shop is free to advertise certain fishing stuff products they want to push. ON THEIR PAGE. They do not need external content tracking people to the dog food page to show them the fishing ads there too. You don't need any data for that and nobody would block ads like that because they'd be part of the content of the fishing stuff store.

You are telling a story which is based upon lies you hide behind this what you are not telling AND YOU KNOW IT! You are one of those shady players and you've shown it RIGHT HERE.

[andreygrehov]

(facepalm)

> Who the hell do you think you are to decide what is in my best interest?

I'm not deciding anything for you. I can only recommend. You either share your data or you don't. It's your decision.

> If I go on a page for fishing stuff, the shop is free to advertise certain fishing stuff products they want to push. ON THEIR PAGE.

Of course they can do so. Except the times when they want to maximize their ad revenue, so they sell the ad slot to other companies.

[Krasnol]

> I'm not deciding anything for you. I can only recommend. You either share your data or you don't. It's your decision.

I may decide because I know how ad-blockers work (and even there it drips through as you must know best) but most out there don't decide. They are being robbed along the way without even knowing it. You rob them of their data, their attention and divert it afterwards for your profit. You're being paid to make this crime work.

> Of course they can do so. Except the times when they want to maximize their ad revenue, so they sell the ad slot to other companies.

And how is the fishing shop becoming an ad reseller something that would make your point above valid? Your attention rape has nothing to do anymore with me getting fishing stuff which I've been looking for. The purpose completely switched over to third parties. Meaning your employee and the shop proprietor sharing the profits of this crime. Completely unrelated to the products the shop sells.

[andreygrehov]

Don't you think you should blame the shop owner and not the ad company in this case? At the end of the day, it's the shop owner who came to us, not we came to them.

[Krasnol]

I don't believe it...it's the "weapons don't kill people" defence...

It is you who provide the most intrusive and aggressive weapons for this crime. The owner would have no way to do this by himself.