[arciini]

While I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it'll lead to them concentrating more power in the ad market.

Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved.

If you don't think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It's better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don't care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense.

The following only makes sense if you buy this argument:

The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it's not worth it.

Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting". The Chrome topics API and mathematical/statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies/data brokers.

That being said, I don't love the concentration of power (that's why the DOJ is going after them) - I'd much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.

[tristor]

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.

As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.

[gambiting]

>>Advertisements and marketing are immoral.

So if you are selling something it's literally immoral to tell other people about it? How do you think people will ever find your store or product that you make? Just randomly stumble upon it? I'm genuinely curious.

[tristor]

It is not immoral to tell someone the bare facts of your offer. It is immoral to construct an advertisement, that is a carefully crafted message intended to manipulate the recipient. If your idea of an advertisement is a written text box or a person reading in a monotone voice the "speeds and feeds" and the price, then by all means, go for it. But if you think it's okay to imply without specifically saying it that your product has capabilities it does not, or to make the viewer experience emotional responses leading them to believe your product will make them feel better after you intentionally made them feel bad, then I would strongly argue that your advertisements are immoral.

[ketralnis]

Further, almost all advertisement is party A selling party C's eyeballs to party B, without involving party C at all. Some people buy Vogue magazine specifically for the ads and cool, but my start menu on my monitor attached to my computer all belong to me, not Microsoft to then auction off to somebody else. A deal that changed after I made the deal with Microsoft that didn't include that. That's clearly immoral.

[voxic11]

When did you make a deal with Microsoft not to modify your start menu and how can I get in on that?

[figassis]

So, it’s really very simple. I either want ads or I don’t want ads. Only if I want ads should there be a choice between targeted, contextual or random. There is no “I don’t want ads but I should get them anyway because reasons”. And the fact that today it’s impossible for me to opt out of ads is the problem. Talking about the feasibility of the internet is also manipulative. The argument here is and always has been about choice. Google and friends want to protect their ability to remove choice from us.

If I visit a website with ad blockers, it has the right to block me. It’s business model will depend on whether the number of people it has to block will kill it. This means it should probably find a better business model, not force itself on everyone.

[pierat]

You smell bad.

You look terrible.

Your teeth are yellow.

Your hair is stringy.

But you can fix everything with our Cure-All Elixir, and you will be made whole again... but you had better keep drinking every day, or.....

----------

Advertisements are no longer "we make stuff. Come here to buy stuff".

It then progressed to "people who buy our stuff feel good". But that wasn't all.

Then it progressed to non-spoken feelings when in proximity of thing.

And it turns out, that you can manufacture want of your good or service. And if you gatekeep the emotions of good, wholesome, fresh, clean, happy behind your product, you can tell people they're horrible trolls unless you buy and consume.

But even those tactics weren't enough. Now, most sales are in tech related stuff. And instead of telling people over advertisement channels, now they get pushed to your devices.

And the current stage, also known as enshittification, is also cloud-tying to guarantee captive consumers, so they can't easily leave. Cloud is the ultimate hardware and data roach motel.

So yeah, looking at the recent history of advertisements is just broken, unethical, shits on the environment, and assails human thoughts just to sell more garbage.

[chromoblob]

I misread "data roach model" and wondered for a second what "data roaches" are :)

[endisneigh]

Your entire diatribe is not really about advertising inherently.

[pierat]

Those whom do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

I am an anticapitalist, and I am acutely aware of what I am against. Advertisements, and how they solidified in the 1800s to current is one such thing I'm directly against.

I've also seen Rome Collesuem's chiseled graffiti to what amounts to "eat at restaurant". Rudimentary, when compared to hiring psychologists to extract as much wealth by exploiting the human psyche, but they were adverts nonetheless. And even those shat upon infrastructure and the humans who were there.

I do think there's a gradient of unethicalness in advertising. If I'm looking for a thing, and shown lists of things that match what I'm looking for, it's at least consensual behavior.

But these days, advertisements are anything but. They're invasive, insidious, and many a time try to fool the human that they're legitimate (and not paid) content.

But I'm guessing the emotional words you chose to use tells me you're probably in adtech.

[Hermitian909]

> If I'm looking for a thing, and shown lists of things that match what I'm looking for, it's at least consensual behavior.

An argument I find compelling here is as follows: sometimes I will look for something, and the world will tell me what I want does not exist. I will either build it myself or do without. If the state of the world changes, and a solution emerges, I would like that fact pushed to me (concrete example: new, more efficient battery chemistries for hot climates).

Waiting for everyone to pull slows down growth of whoever is innovating this new thing - which in turns hinders their innovation - which in turn slows down innovation in the economy.

There's a tradeoff here with all the bad things you lay out about advertising, but I'm not convinced I should prefer the more rapid rate of innovation.

[sekh60]

Well put comrade.

[svachalek]

It's about maximally effective advertising. Why would you choose anything less?

[ndriscoll]

Something like listing yourself in a business directory seems perfectly ethical. Something like yellow pages. Maybe where you are limited to a logo, 1-2 sentences, and a URL, with e.g. category or location metadata for the user to filter on. There could be a uniform nominal fee to pay for the service, or have it be a public service. Businesses could be presented in random order when browsing, or maybe in order of distance from a user-chosen location. Basically, a pull model for people to find businesses that provide products or services that they want. A similar model could be used for listing products, and then maybe the business directory could let you list retailers that carry a specific product or set of products.

Anything much above that starts to veer into the territory of paying to distort people's understanding of the market, or convince them they want things that they don't, etc.

[bostik]

Not immoral. Just potentially counterproductive.

I've taken a stance, DECADES ago, that all ads are telegraphing a very simple message: "my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits, therefore I have to spend money to drown out the more worthy options".

[xyzelement]

//my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits

That's kinda like assuming that because you're such a good guy, you never have to leave your basement and your future wife will find you.

You could just as well interpret advertising as "I am so convinced my offering is good, I am willing to spend money for you to become aware of it."

[gretch]

> Just potentially counterproductive.

It is definitely not counterproductive. Mountains of evidence and real $ back the fact that advertising works.

You have a quirky pocket theory

If you want to conduct an experiment, try making a product or starting a business and don't advertise it.

[bostik]

I wasn't trying to claim it didn't work. That's the whole point of it: to drown out other options. Hence for me advertising is a major negative signal as far as quality or suitability for purpose is concerned.

It's like being in the countryside, where each inn and resting spot has a fire going on. You can spot them by their smoke trails. Then some entrepreneurial individual wants to grab market share from the punters and puts up a massive tire fire. A billowing column of black smoke will be seen from way further off, and as luck would have it, blocks visibility to anything behind it. It also makes the surrounding environment worse off for everyone.

And anyone who is attracted by the big flames will soon find themselves inhaling toxins.

[sambazi]

now stretch that analogy and substitute the valuable service (lodging) for something benign, like astrology or pet barber.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

In theory it's possible for it to be perfectly ethical. In practice this happens so rarely that it's not worth discussing.

[rmbyrro]

It looks like a worthwhile discussion about which you have not yet been able to prepare a reasonably well thought argument to present.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Because I'm not arguing in that discussion: I would support ads that inform without manipulating. But since they statistically don't exist, pointing to them in an argument about real ads is just a motte-and-bailey.

[oehpr]

If I recommended something to you but didn't believe it was actually worth recommending, is that immoral? Well I basically lied to you...

But it's ok! Because I also financially benefited from it.

Yes, marketing is immoral.

[chromoblob]

If it pays me, then I believe it's worth recommending :)

Though if you reject this implication, I totally agree.

[sambazi]

imho rational beings have to reject it as it undermines trust and hence society as a whole.

[zlg_codes]

This is a bad faith argument. You ought to know what the social and psychological effects of what you're defending. It isn't just informing people that a business exists. It's getting in the way of their normal routine to shove your capitalist crap in someone's face to buy. You don't stop random conversations to bring up products in normal conversation, so it has no place to interrupt conversation.

Advertising is fucking everywhere. I don't want to hear about new products and services because all of them literally just want your money. I'm not always shopping or looking for a product. I find navigating markets a massive ass pain.

We need legislation that forces advertising to the margins of society, where it belongs. We aren't just sacks of meat to be manipulated. There is nothing just about commercial communication having a louder voice than the people.

[gambiting]

>>This is a bad faith argument. You ought to know what the social and psychological effects of what you're defending.

I don't understand why or how you see my question as one made in bad faith. OP said all advertising is immoral - I want to explore if they really think all advertising is immoral, or just some subset of it. Like, if you own a butcher shop and have a sign up front that says "fresh meat here!", is that immoral? If yes, why? Again, I'm genuienly curious.

[xyzelement]

//You don't stop random conversations to bring up products in normal conversation

Sure you do. If people are talking about cars for their families, and I have a suggestion for them based on my prior research, I'll share it. It's been raining a lot in my area recently, so lots of folks talking about which basement waterproofer they had a good experience with.

The reason these things don't feel like ads is because they are "super targeted" - I am telling someone about a product/service that I believe they would be interested in based on what I understand about them. Obviously I also don't get paid for this messaging but that's probably not the crux of the matter here. If advertising was "so good" that I would only see ads for products that are genuinely valuable and relevant to me at that time, that would be great.

[Nullabillity]

Who do you think the current system of "biggest malvertising budget wins" favours? Who do you think can afford those massive budgets?

[gambiting]

I don't see how that's relevant to my question. OP said that all advertising is immoral, I wonder if they really mean ALL advertising.

[charcircuit]

>Who do you think can afford those massive budgets?

Businesses that sell a lot of products that people actually want and do not end up returning. The money for advertising is not sustainable if it doesn't result in some sort of purchase down the line.

[chromoblob]

A business can also subsidize adverts for "bad" products by profit from "good" products.

[xyzelement]

Nobody would intentionally chose to do that...

[endisneigh]

Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not "psychological manipulation at scale?"

[tristor]

Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome by the end of the ad spot. Advertisements are.

Words in general don't go through endless focus grouping and internal company debate to ensure the exact choice of words, tone of voice and cadence in uttering them, elicit the correct emotional response. Advertisements do.

You are being disingenuous in your response to me and trying to set up a strawman.

I realize a lot of highly paid tech workers on HN work in adtech or adtech-adjacent. It's even helped to pay my salary at different points in my career. It doesn't change the fact of the matter. The /entire point/ of advertisements is to psychologically manipulate the person viewing the ad. That is immoral, full stop.

[endisneigh]

Everything you're saying can be applied to journalism. Is journalism immoral? Give me a break.

[tristor]

Some "journalism" is immoral, most of which falls into that category effectively /are/ advertisements being put into the public eye under the cover of journalism. You are painting so broad a brush in order to create a fundamental category error in your constructed straw man. You might fool others, but your argument holds no sway with me because it is utterly inane and transparent for what it is.

If you cannot articulate an actual point in response to me, I'd advise barking up another tree.

[endisneigh]

You presented a very concrete set of attributes that you call immoral.

> Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome

I have presented something, journalism, that does the same things. You claim that some journalism is not immoral which is true. It must follow for the same reason that some advertisements are not immoral either.

Seems like you don't have an actual argument - posting on a Y Combinator MARKETING page, no less.

[bostik]

Believe me, if journalists could tap the same set of resources as advertising does, they would. A really good editor can turn a mediocre piece to a good one, but it takes time, and 3-4 rounds of back-and forth. The same editor, working with a prodigiously talented writer, can turn a rough diamond into something absolutely incredible.

Disclosure: I've done about a decade of freelancing, and during that time was trained by old-school practitioners on how to structure my writing.

[zlg_codes]

Does journalism motivate people to spend money on shit they don't need?

People are so used to being inundated with commercial attempts at manipulation that it's just part of their day.

Do you use an adblocker?

[scrps]

People having a visceral hate of advertising and a vast swath of the internet's users block them in every permutation because advertising is good for ones mental health?

Car ads selling sex appeal, power, status and freedom are provable features of the car? Same goes for influencers pushing products, submarine marketing, etc... It is all psychology and it is manipulation at scale. Words at scale designed to manipulate people into doing something is psychological.

[xmprt]

People block ads because they like to have control over the content they see. Not because of this nebulous fear of manipulation. If ad blocking was made impossible tomorrow then I'd learn other ways to tune out advertisements. It's because ads are boring and intrusive. Not because they're manipulative.

[scrps]

I can only speak for myself but I block advertising because I find no utility in them in any form. I am curious what others reasons are?

[Given_47]

Tin foil hat time: I've started writing down companies behind ads that happen to slip through my defenses that are obnoxious/offensive/etc. Because, as you mention, so much of advertising is psychological manipulation. It'll be helpful to have a list of offenders to reference to before making a purchase for example.

The idea occurred to me after someone here proclaimed that they're simply unaffected by ads, reasoning they don't make rash purchases. Someone naturally countered with the extreme subconscious effect of ads.

This list thing is imperfect (I mean look how omnipresent car logos are for example) but it's an improvement from thinking you're immune to ads. Memory is fickle, and why Memento is my favorite movie.

[SenAnder]

Do you believe all words are equally manipulative? That if we categorize speech by funding and intent, no category would be more manipulative than any other?

[endisneigh]

you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say anything about magnitudes, just that communication is inherently manipulative.

[regentbowerbird]

> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.

"no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).

[endisneigh]

No more does not imply equality, just that it's not greater than, which is simply the truth. Advertisements are not inherently more manipulative than words in general.

If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.

[generic92034]

Nope. You did say:

> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.

This is a statement about magnitudes and in my estimation the statement is mostly wrong.

[endisneigh]

it's not right or wrong.

is paid poster in a college dorm hall - an advertisement - more or less manipulative than Trump's January 6th tweets?

If you have evidence to suggest that advertisements are inherently more manipulative than other types of communication feel free to share.

[johnnyworker]

That's so wide it says nothing. It's not even a soccer field, much less a goal post.

[zeroonetwothree]

There is no solid line separating ads from other content. What about a positive review for a game? Is that not an ad because the reviewer wasn’t paid? But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)?

There are many other examples. It’s much more a matter of degree than just saying “ads bad”.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)?

Yes, that's a well-established conflict of interest which is why there's supposed to be disclaimers whenever it happens

[endisneigh]

Ironically what you are suggesting here would erode privacy.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

How so?

[endisneigh]

unless you can uniquely identify people such disclaimers would be ineffective and useless. for example what if I were paid to say something? how would you know if I were paid or not? if it's the honor system, then that'll trend to no disclosure to begin with - that's exactly why shilling is a thing, and why it'll never stop.

[arpa]

I wish I could upvote you more. I too think that advertisements are at best unethical, at worst downright evil. Just like organized religion, the ads are designed to distort the perceived reality into something that it isn't and part the fool and their money.

[jzb]

"Advertisements and marketing are immoral."

That's quite a position. Are you also taking the position that capitalism and commerce are immoral? Because you really can't have those things absent marketing.

At any rate, I can't agree with this. The way that ads/marketing are done can be immoral, for sure -- but you also have PSAs against littering or simply marketing / advertising for any number of things that I'd hope we'd all agree are good ("Spay and neuter your pets," "Don't drink & drive") or at worst neutral ("Now available: The Beatles 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper CD").

Promoting a thing is not the same thing as "psychological manipulation" unless you consider "making a person or persons aware of something" is manipulation.

One might even argue that marketing is a good when the thing is something that people benefit from being aware of. Is marketing open source immoral? Fitness, as a concept? Ads for animal adoption are immoral?

At any rate - ads are a symptom of consumerism and capitalism, so as long as that's the system we exist in they're going to be present.

[arpa]

Wow, man, your mental gymnastics are impressive and your gaslighting skills are formidable.

Are you saying that greed and straight-out lying is moral, and just because there is a powerful and dangerous minority of super-greedy liars it actually is the only means of social existence? LOL. LMAO even.

"Ads are just making people aware of something" is either a five-year old understanding of what ads are, or a deliberate lie.

[JohnFen]

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

I don't personally agree with this, but I think it's an irrelevant point. The point is that targeted advertising requires spying on people. Google's "solution" is a nonsolution because it simply codifies that spying. That it's arguably less comprehensive spying is beside the point.

It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.

[jkubicek]

> It's not the ads I object to, it's the data collection that drives the ads.

I'll take this one step further, it's not the data _collection_ that bothers me, it's the data _sharing_.

I have an Instagram account, I'm fine with Meta hoovering up every tiny bit of data from my account to generate highly targeted ads. They know my posts, my photos, my follows, my comments, my faves. They can use all that data to deliver highly targeted ads directly to my timeline.

What I don't want is Meta knowing anything at all about my actions _outside_ of Instagram. What apps I have installed, my purchase history, my search history, my location, my real-life friends and family. That's all private and Meta should never know about any of it.

[naniwaduni]

You can have your restricted concerns, I'm going to keep taking issue with (a) data collected being data that can get accidental public backups, and (b) ads being an unwanted imposition on my attention.

[jkubicek]

The solution to both of those problems is to not use Instagram, which isn't a great solution, but at least it's possible.

However, if Instagram is collecting browsing history and location data on me from some other source, it's hard/impossible for me to avoid.

[skybrian]

Time to check Ad Topics in Chrome Settings to see what information advertisers are getting from me...

Nope, nothing I wouldn't wouldn't share publicly. Just like every other time I checked.

(I won't copy it all here since I'm on mobile, but otherwise I would. it's all very bland topics like "Online Communities.")

It's technically targeted advertising, but only barely. I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.

[JohnFen]

> I voluntary share much more information on the Internet.

The key word here is "voluntarily". My objection is having data about me, my machines, or my use of my machines being collected without my consent.

If I have given informed consent, there is no problem.

[Nullabillity]

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

Ads are, at best, malware for the brain.

What little positive they could possibly serve (discovery) is unfixably corrupted by the profit incentives involved.

[eh_why_not]

> If you don't think that all ads are bad... then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.

No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.

Advertising has value in letting people know about your product. If you're selling locally, you rent a billboard on some street crossing, or a banner at a mall, or you buy a sponsorship at a local event because you think your target demographic will be there. At a demographic level, not individuals.

On the Internet, geography translates to maybe using zipcode from an IP address, and demographics translates to choosing which websites ("publishers") to put ads on.

And that should be it, that's fair and should get you enough bang for your buck.

Putting cameras in people's homes, listening to their conversations, following them around in their cars, stalking their relationships, tracking their voting records, etc should not be an acceptable way of increasing the efficiency of the targeting.

Of course you would make more money with this kind of spying (as what happens today). But this kind of invasion has great societal costs to privacy, and subsequently to freedoms, and should never be justifiable.

[gretch]

> No. The most ad targeting that should ever exist is by geography, and that's it.

This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine.

But it's also really dumb.

Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup? I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?

There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads. Are those capabilities used 100% for good causes? of course not. But it at least does something for society, unlike a weird moral finger wagging.

[JohnFen]

If targeting can be done without spying on people, then fine. But it's the spying that's the problem. Whether or not the data obtained without people's consent can be used for good purposes doesn't justify it.

[eh_why_not]

> This is an arbitrary moral line, and if you that's the one you want to draw for your own life, then fine.

The moral line is that you do not spy on people in order to "improve" their "ad experience". Geography is one way to do it that's then acceptable.

> Why should men see ads for tampons? Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup?

If a man enters a lingerie shop, he will expect to see ads for tampons. If a woman enters a man's cigar club (or whatever), she will expect to see ads for a prostate cancer checkup.

"Why" is because the only possible way to do otherwise is by spying on them. Anything that requires customizing ads per person inherently requires the spying.

> There's all sorts of value and productivity that can be gained from targeting ads.

And there it is. You see it as an optimization problem of "value and productivity", and there is no place for privacy in that equation.

Much like a factory dumping its chemical waste in the town's river. A lot of "value" is created during the process.

[andelink]

> Why should men see ads for tampons?

Why do tampon ads need to exist? It’s something you purchase on a regular interval.

> Why should women see a message telling them to get a prostate cancer checkup?

Why would there be any ads at all for prostate cancer checkups? This should be brought up by your doctor in an appointment with you. Who would even pay for and produce such ads?

> I already have tickets to see the superbowl - why am I getting ads to once again buy more tickets to the superbowl?

A stadium holds what, ~70k people, <0.05% of the US population? The massive adtech infrastructure privacy invasion just to avoid potentially showing an ad to someone who won’t convert on that incremental impression.

None of the arguments for hyper-targeted ads are compelling in the slightest.

[havnagiggle]

Very strange that you consider ads based on geography as fine. That's the one I am most concerned about, primarily with political and PR-focused advertising which are often heavily geographic based. I care extremely little about "products" advertising.

[eh_why_not]

Good point and a real concern. I considered an analogy to the physical world and used that: if you are a local business and want people to know about your product, you can rent a billboard in the town square, or buy a spot on a local TV channel.

The idea is that as long as it is coarse-grained geography it was less damaging.

But would that make it dangerous for political and ideological mass "influencing"? Maybe you're right. If we ever get a chance to have laws and regulate it, maybe allowing certain categories only.

[daft_pink]

If you look at how Google is approaching competing with companies like Apple on Android, or Firefox and Safari on Chrome. It's obvious that the overarching theme of the company is to copy all their security upgrades immediately and create watered down versions of the privacy technology, so they can appear to care about your privacy and compete, but their solutions simply aren't very good at protecting your privacy and there really isn't any good reason other than the truth that they want to appear to care about your privacy, while controlling and developing their technology in such a way that it doesn't protect your privacy as well as the competition or just gives only them access to the info, but protects it from others.

Firefox and Safari blocked third party cookies ages ago.

It's obvoius that we cannot just trust google to control important technologies the way we used to and need consider the competition if we care about privacy.

[marcosdumay]

> If you don't think that all ads are bad

And you don't think that user-based targeting is bad.

This is a huge parenthesis, that you forgot to put on the disclaimer. In fact, it's more important than what is there.

Besides:

> Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity

Yes, they act as if they believe. What is either incredibly negligent or fraudulent.

[naniwaduni]

> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then

I don't think it's at all unreasonable not to accept this premise in the first place.

[hk1337]

> Google's perspective is: "we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting".

This often happens with government laws and policies too, in the U.S.

Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?

[gretch]

> Google may indeed be a good, responsible steward of the data but what those that come after them?

I don't think this is a good argument, because the same argument can be used against technological advancement of any kind.

For example with genetics research that addresses diseases - you can say "ah but even though the current government is responsible, who is to say that we won't get a bad govt in 20 years who will use this capability to use bioweapons that perform genocide".

We shouldn't build factories, because the next generation can convert those factories into ones that make guns?

No, we have to count on each generation of humans to be responsible. This worked for the last ~5000 years of civilization or so, and I think it's the way it has to keep working

[mehlmao]

Why can't we have a system where you (and the vast majority that you're sure love targeted ads) can opt in to being tracked by Google and other companies, and everyone else is protected from invasive data collection by default?

[JohnFen]

This would be ideal, yes.