[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.