AdTech Sucks: This Time It's Personal IDs(lockwood.dev)
lockwood.dev
AdTech Sucks: This Time It's Personal IDs
https://lockwood.dev/advertising/2019/06/14/adtech-sucks-this-time-its-personal-ids.html
76 comments
Going to keep saying it under every post that is relevant. The ad industry is evil. Both in its current form and by definition. The sooner it dies, the better we are all off.
> Going to keep saying it under every post that is relevant
Please don't. We're optimizing for intellectual curiosity here, and there's none of that left when a statement becomes so predictable.
If you think of the threads like conversations, this might make more sense. Nobody likes it when someone repeats the same thing over and over in every conversation. It doesn't matter how right you are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't. We're optimizing for intellectual curiosity here, and there's none of that left when a statement becomes so predictable.
If you think of the threads like conversations, this might make more sense. Nobody likes it when someone repeats the same thing over and over in every conversation. It doesn't matter how right you are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Hi -- ad industry member here -- am not evil, I am trying to do my job as ethically as I can. I understand you don't want to see ads. I don’t care for them myself at times, but when we do show them, we make sure they are as relevant, appropriate, and most importantly valuable. I understand that the HN crowd is more sensitive to being enraged by ads, but we actually get quite a bit of user feedback saying they are appreciative of the money we were able to save them by using our service. So, like anything in life, it isn’t black or white, there is a whole lot of gray.
I don't care about ads, I care about how much you track users to show them.
You say that they are relevant as if that was something to be proud of. You've had to track users across all the internet to be able to show relevant ads, so relevant ads disgust me.
You say that they are relevant as if that was something to be proud of. You've had to track users across all the internet to be able to show relevant ads, so relevant ads disgust me.
Relevant ads existed before internet was even a thing. A lawnmower ad inside a gardening magazine is every bit as relevant as a hyper targeted banner.
Contextual advertising (what you’re describing above) is a lot less intrusive than hyper targeted advertising.
The former evaluates the context of the content being delivered by the server, while the latter evaluates an encyclopedia’s worth of data (both inferences and known traits) about the user.
The former evaluates the context of the content being delivered by the server, while the latter evaluates an encyclopedia’s worth of data (both inferences and known traits) about the user.
I agree. Contextual advertising is less intrusive. What I also believe is that it is also very relevant and there is a debate about whether hyper targeted advertising actually drives more sales.
its not about the ads, its about the survaillence infrastructure.
Exactly this.
People somehow think that if you get rid of ads the surveillance architecture will go away. They say “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” but the converse is not true - you could be paying and STILL the company could be collecting your data, such as ISPs.
We need full end to end encryption and decentralization! Everything should be opt-in by design.
People somehow think that if you get rid of ads the surveillance architecture will go away. They say “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” but the converse is not true - you could be paying and STILL the company could be collecting your data, such as ISPs.
We need full end to end encryption and decentralization! Everything should be opt-in by design.
I guess OP implies more like a structural evil, as a whole, and the broader effects on society.
I have some experience with adtech, and I know a significant part of it is exploiting low-education low-income people to spend money with manipulative ads.
The people who actively exploit are the advertisers, and they use technology provided by ad-tech who make sure that the amount of money being extracted out of people is as large as possible.
The way to achieve this is to get as close as possible to users, which means breaking boundaries of what is basically a human right to privacy.
There's no one to blame, but the overall effect of the technology has some significant side-effects, which need to be curtailed, as those low-educated people don't know how they are being played.
I have some experience with adtech, and I know a significant part of it is exploiting low-education low-income people to spend money with manipulative ads.
The people who actively exploit are the advertisers, and they use technology provided by ad-tech who make sure that the amount of money being extracted out of people is as large as possible.
The way to achieve this is to get as close as possible to users, which means breaking boundaries of what is basically a human right to privacy.
There's no one to blame, but the overall effect of the technology has some significant side-effects, which need to be curtailed, as those low-educated people don't know how they are being played.
" I understand you don't want to see ads. "
That's not what this post is about, and not what most people here care about. I'm not attacking you here, but if you think that's what we're saying "Sucks", then you're really missing the point. Sure, we don't really want to SEE ads, but they're everywhere, and they're just part of life. Most of us just ignore them.
We absolutely positively do not want to be followed around by any number of AdTech companies profiling us and selling what we do and buy. Leaking all that to all the places it gets leaked. Trading our lives and what we do with others, all so someone can show us a "better" ad in the hopes we'll pay attention.
Show us an ad, fine, we can ignore it. Stop profiling everything single we do and not giving us any realistic way to opt-out. We have no idea who has all this and what will be done with it, and there's nothing we can do. All is the name of showing us a better ad.
That's not what this post is about, and not what most people here care about. I'm not attacking you here, but if you think that's what we're saying "Sucks", then you're really missing the point. Sure, we don't really want to SEE ads, but they're everywhere, and they're just part of life. Most of us just ignore them.
We absolutely positively do not want to be followed around by any number of AdTech companies profiling us and selling what we do and buy. Leaking all that to all the places it gets leaked. Trading our lives and what we do with others, all so someone can show us a "better" ad in the hopes we'll pay attention.
Show us an ad, fine, we can ignore it. Stop profiling everything single we do and not giving us any realistic way to opt-out. We have no idea who has all this and what will be done with it, and there's nothing we can do. All is the name of showing us a better ad.
> and not giving us any realistic way to opt-out
The opt-out model is inherently incompatible with the desire to not be tracked. If the default is that everyone is tracked, and you need to opt out, then just setting a flag in an HTTP header isn't enough, because your digital traces encompass far more than your HTTP requests. In order to make sure you're not following people, and not just browsers, you need to set up some sort of universal identification for adtech to. . . wait for it. . . track.
The opt-out model is inherently incompatible with the desire to not be tracked. If the default is that everyone is tracked, and you need to opt out, then just setting a flag in an HTTP header isn't enough, because your digital traces encompass far more than your HTTP requests. In order to make sure you're not following people, and not just browsers, you need to set up some sort of universal identification for adtech to. . . wait for it. . . track.
It's unenforceable (since it's way too easy for companies to just say claim they forgot you didn't want to be tracked), but that doesn't mean it is incompatible. It would work if ad companies were acting in good faith.
The fact that ad companies are evidently not acting in good faith makes this a bit of a moot point, but morally it's important to point out that ad companies don't have to make it impossible to opt-out.
The fact that ad companies are evidently not acting in good faith makes this a bit of a moot point, but morally it's important to point out that ad companies don't have to make it impossible to opt-out.
Author here! Well said!
Yeah, I definitely think advertising has a place, and I sometimes engage with ads. I know that ads work. But that's definitely not what I'm arguing against. Advertising isn't inherently bad, but the implementation currently is in most cases.
Yeah, I definitely think advertising has a place, and I sometimes engage with ads. I know that ads work. But that's definitely not what I'm arguing against. Advertising isn't inherently bad, but the implementation currently is in most cases.
Hi author! I am actually not responding to claims made in your article (imagine that, comments that don't discuss the article!) but the broad brush painted by parent that "The ad industry is evil"
I think this does a disservice to the world evil and trivializes it: Hitler is evil. War is evil. Ad tech.. Inconvenient? Frustrating? Possibly infringing on your civil liberties? All possible, likely depending on which ad company it is, but evil? Let's talk about those things! Let's avoid the extremist language what serves no one and only divides people further into their respective camps, and let's try to have an intellectually honest conversation on HN for once, but given the response to my comment, doesn't seem like today is the day.
I think this does a disservice to the world evil and trivializes it: Hitler is evil. War is evil. Ad tech.. Inconvenient? Frustrating? Possibly infringing on your civil liberties? All possible, likely depending on which ad company it is, but evil? Let's talk about those things! Let's avoid the extremist language what serves no one and only divides people further into their respective camps, and let's try to have an intellectually honest conversation on HN for once, but given the response to my comment, doesn't seem like today is the day.
Evil: profoundly immoral and wicked
I follow that with an interesting anecdote!
During the filming of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the actress playing Nurse Ratchett, the principle antagonist in the film, suffered a breakdown resulting from animosity built up amongst the film crew. Her mere portrayal and demonstration of wicked/evil tendencies was sufficient to taint the emotional atmosphere.
Point being:
When one is in an environment, and feels it necessary to try to say "I'm not evil! X, Y, and Z are evil! What I'm doing isn't!", it is generally a sign of cognitive dissonance being brushed up against.
There is an argument to be made, that if what the AdTech industry does is so effective at bringing up feelings of hostility, revulsion, and repugnance once properly understood, it may very well be to an extent "evil" due to a demonstrated capacity to generate widespread feelings of immorality.
It takes time, and effort to elucidate the various ways in which this industry triggers fundamental moral avoidance circuits.
AdTech violates moral principles of "being a good host", "professional discretion", "unimpositive (not imposing on one's guests or making light of imposing on or dominating their attention)", "non-intrusion", "being courteous in the immediate term", and "conservative in taking actions that could have far reaching consequences in the long term".
These are fundamental underpinnings of the fabric of positive societal interaction, and are to differing levels globally recognized.
Taking and violating such fundamental precepts, and in ways difficult to understand and extrapolate by the Common person illustrates a callous disregard for what makes society work, and implicitly sets off those alarm bells you mentioned earlier.
I'm not even being outright inflammatory; just pointing out the essential characteristics of the arrangement. If a barebones explication of what you do violates so many fundamental behavioral assumptions, and generates such animosity when brought out into the light of day, you really need to sit down and give it a long think.
Is delivering a better Ad really worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Is delivering a better Ad worth endangering the framework that got us this far?
If your answer is still yes after giving it intense thought, you need to spend more time amongst your detractors, because you've likely only seen one side of the matter at issue.
I follow that with an interesting anecdote!
During the filming of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the actress playing Nurse Ratchett, the principle antagonist in the film, suffered a breakdown resulting from animosity built up amongst the film crew. Her mere portrayal and demonstration of wicked/evil tendencies was sufficient to taint the emotional atmosphere.
Point being:
When one is in an environment, and feels it necessary to try to say "I'm not evil! X, Y, and Z are evil! What I'm doing isn't!", it is generally a sign of cognitive dissonance being brushed up against.
There is an argument to be made, that if what the AdTech industry does is so effective at bringing up feelings of hostility, revulsion, and repugnance once properly understood, it may very well be to an extent "evil" due to a demonstrated capacity to generate widespread feelings of immorality.
It takes time, and effort to elucidate the various ways in which this industry triggers fundamental moral avoidance circuits.
AdTech violates moral principles of "being a good host", "professional discretion", "unimpositive (not imposing on one's guests or making light of imposing on or dominating their attention)", "non-intrusion", "being courteous in the immediate term", and "conservative in taking actions that could have far reaching consequences in the long term".
These are fundamental underpinnings of the fabric of positive societal interaction, and are to differing levels globally recognized.
Taking and violating such fundamental precepts, and in ways difficult to understand and extrapolate by the Common person illustrates a callous disregard for what makes society work, and implicitly sets off those alarm bells you mentioned earlier.
I'm not even being outright inflammatory; just pointing out the essential characteristics of the arrangement. If a barebones explication of what you do violates so many fundamental behavioral assumptions, and generates such animosity when brought out into the light of day, you really need to sit down and give it a long think.
Is delivering a better Ad really worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Is delivering a better Ad worth endangering the framework that got us this far?
If your answer is still yes after giving it intense thought, you need to spend more time amongst your detractors, because you've likely only seen one side of the matter at issue.
[deleted]
Hi ad industry member. I haven't used the word evil in any of my comments or posts so far.
It’s hard to tell if this is sarcasm or not. I’d feel better if it were mocking the industry though.
I don't think ads are evil. I am used to the compromise of society the afford. I do think the trackers and building databases of user profiles is evil- the strive for relevance should be in the other direction. "Dumb" ads on websites that talk about content I'm interested in actually works. I've bought stuff from those ads. Following me around the internet to remind me of something I've already made a decision about is the wrong way to go.
I think a lot of us here have played the ad game with Google, realize it's optimized to help G, not us, and call bullshit.
Nevertheless, the industry touts its success but a lot of us think it's smoke and mirrors- basically, the ads only help with branding, which does not require such deep tracking.
We think you guys know it too, but keep insisting on tracking.
That makes us very suspicious: what are you doing with the data if it's not effective at getting me to buy something? And exactly how much do you know about me?
So, in the eyes of many, the tracking ad industry has about as much chance of convincing us it's morally fit as Trump does.
I think a lot of us here have played the ad game with Google, realize it's optimized to help G, not us, and call bullshit.
Nevertheless, the industry touts its success but a lot of us think it's smoke and mirrors- basically, the ads only help with branding, which does not require such deep tracking.
We think you guys know it too, but keep insisting on tracking.
That makes us very suspicious: what are you doing with the data if it's not effective at getting me to buy something? And exactly how much do you know about me?
So, in the eyes of many, the tracking ad industry has about as much chance of convincing us it's morally fit as Trump does.
I'm not sure he's really talking about actually having to see ads with his post. I know I don't particularly mind, companies kind of have to do it to some extent. It's the invasion of privacy that now goes with it that is being highlighted as a problem here.
Can I opt out of cyberstalking, have my dossier removed from your servers, and just see ads relevant to the site I'm visting? You know, just like newspapers and specialized magazines do?
Yes, especially since we are fully compliant with CCPA, and GDPR. I can push one button and have all of your data deleted if you so wish.
Can you go do that for my Facebook, Google, Adobe etc etc ad data? Their resistance to GDPR compliance is well documented.
This is the core point you’re missing. People here are talking about the industry as a whole. Not your ethical internet ad firm or you yourself.
The industry. Not you or your situation.
I’ve worked at a “marketing analytics solutions” company before (shudders at the memory).
I had access (was a data processor) to 60 million UK people’s info on their mortgage, email address, age, marital status, car make/model, likely holiday destinations... etc etc.
What we did with the data doesn’t matter. The fact it does is exist and is hidden from the customers view is the problem.
This is the core point you’re missing. People here are talking about the industry as a whole. Not your ethical internet ad firm or you yourself.
The industry. Not you or your situation.
I’ve worked at a “marketing analytics solutions” company before (shudders at the memory).
I had access (was a data processor) to 60 million UK people’s info on their mortgage, email address, age, marital status, car make/model, likely holiday destinations... etc etc.
What we did with the data doesn’t matter. The fact it does is exist and is hidden from the customers view is the problem.
One ad is not a problem. Constant bombardment of ads telling people that they are inadequate without a product is emotional abuse on, literally, an industrial scale. And when people try to escape it, the practices in TFA make the whole scenario worse. Not only can you not escape it, but it's obvious that ads are being crafted to get into our individual brains and abuse us in the most effective manner possible.
No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. But one couldn't reasonably say 'children love catching snowflakes landing on their tongues so it's not black or white whether avalanches are a bad thing.' That's not your position, I know, but there's not nearly as much gray as you seem to suggest.
No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. But one couldn't reasonably say 'children love catching snowflakes landing on their tongues so it's not black or white whether avalanches are a bad thing.' That's not your position, I know, but there's not nearly as much gray as you seem to suggest.
Probably less than 1% of ads are the "make people feel inadequate" variety. You can see this for yourself. Pick 10 random companies you remember the name of, and look up their current FB ads at https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/. And you can certainly be an "ad man" without going that route (I don't make ads like that, myself).
Oh snap, author here. I completely forgot to mention how two factor authentication can be a ploy to get more ids for the cross-device graph, and you just reminded me. Next post maybe!
Ha! I meant The Fine Article. Glad it sparked something. :)
This is the best reply to that response so far, and pretty much the only one that doesn't miss my point. Thanks for writing it.
Ads are fine, and I actually like the ads in magazines. Unfortunately on the web it has become a different beast, where the industry is compromising user privacy to target individuals rather than rely on contextual advertising. This is evil and has to stop.
I think you're not quite understanding the sentiment. Parent comments aside, I think most here don't object to advertising models in general, they object to the mass surveillance that is now standard in the AdTech industry. That, along with intrusive ads that degrade performance and the user experience.
There are things and services out there that I'm pretty sure I would find interesting and valuable, but that I don't know about. These things I wouldn't mind seeing an ad for, if delivered without being too disruptive.
However, browsing the net without an ad blocker these days is like having unprotected sex with random people in some alley behind a bar... it's just not safe.
However, browsing the net without an ad blocker these days is like having unprotected sex with random people in some alley behind a bar... it's just not safe.
You are participating in data collection which contributes to the creation of a surveillance machine which may one day send someone dear to you in jail.
Maybe it's far fetched, maybe not but it doesn't seem worth it.
Did you read the article? If you think seeing ads is the worst part then you're sorely mistaken, almost negligently so.
Sure there's a whole lot of gray but that doesn't mean there's no truly dark parts.
Sure there's a whole lot of gray but that doesn't mean there's no truly dark parts.
Respectfully, I don't mind seeing ads. In fact, I like seeing relavent ads.
What a sibling comment said is much how I feel, I don't want to feel like in visiting a site or using an app that it feels the right suck up as much info about me and then uses my info as currency, then when it leaks out, no one cares. I don't want to have to worry if a site is hosting malware through their ads.
If you want to do it ethically, take a note from https://www.roguefitness.com/privacy-policy
They described exactly what they do, how they use it, and they show you that they can let you opt out if you choose. I actually don't mind letting their ads through because they are so transparent about their policy.
What a sibling comment said is much how I feel, I don't want to feel like in visiting a site or using an app that it feels the right suck up as much info about me and then uses my info as currency, then when it leaks out, no one cares. I don't want to have to worry if a site is hosting malware through their ads.
If you want to do it ethically, take a note from https://www.roguefitness.com/privacy-policy
They described exactly what they do, how they use it, and they show you that they can let you opt out if you choose. I actually don't mind letting their ads through because they are so transparent about their policy.
Its okay man we all have to pay the rent. Just trying to get by in our lovely/shitty society.
This is a stance I can accept from someone working in advertising. This weird "advertising isn't that bad, actually" I cannot.
[deleted]
Nobody gives a shit about ads as much as they care about data being accumulated and sold to hidden third party for unknown purposes.
Why, yes, yes you are. Even if you try to do your job "as ethically as you can", if your job is unethical, then even the best version of it is bad.
Wouldn't you feel better with yourself if you worked for something that actually provides value to people?
Wouldn't you feel better with yourself if you worked for something that actually provides value to people?
> Hi -- ad industry member here -- am not evil
I'm not saying you are evil; but if you were, you would be the last person to know it.
A near-zero percent of people we would consider "evil" think that their actions are/were not justified.
I'm not saying you are evil; but if you were, you would be the last person to know it.
A near-zero percent of people we would consider "evil" think that their actions are/were not justified.
Surely you can target adverts based off of searched terms (as in immediate, not past), current site(eg: the article and not the reader).
Beyond that you get into grey territory, and most of the time down right predatory.
I can run a campaign based on location of search and keywords, that's fine for me. I don't need the user user data. That information is non specific in relation to an actual user. What excuse does anyone have for needing a users history?
Beyond that you get into grey territory, and most of the time down right predatory.
I can run a campaign based on location of search and keywords, that's fine for me. I don't need the user user data. That information is non specific in relation to an actual user. What excuse does anyone have for needing a users history?
> we make sure they are as relevant, appropriate, and most importantly valuable
They're so "valuable" that you admit people "don't want to see ads". Explain?
> but we actually get quite a bit of user feedback saying they are appreciative of the money we were able to save them by using our service
Sure you do. Show us.
They're so "valuable" that you admit people "don't want to see ads". Explain?
> but we actually get quite a bit of user feedback saying they are appreciative of the money we were able to save them by using our service
Sure you do. Show us.
People would be less accepting of adtech if we called it what it is: mind control tech.
If I were to, e.g., scientifically study which words and clothes optimize getting college girls to sleep with me, the outcry would be deafening. But if I do the exact same thing to optimize getting them to click links or pull out credit cards, it's perfectly respectable?
If I were to, e.g., scientifically study which words and clothes optimize getting college girls to sleep with me, the outcry would be deafening. But if I do the exact same thing to optimize getting them to click links or pull out credit cards, it's perfectly respectable?
> If I were to, e.g., scientifically study which words and clothes to use to optimize the odds of getting college girls to sleep with me, the outcry would be deafening
Nah you'd just be a pick up artist
Nah you'd just be a pick up artist
An actual study would be quite a bit more competence than most pick-up artists display, I think. Whether it would be successful (produce particularly high odds)... well, I doubt it.
Yes the competence of PUA types makes them a perfect fit for an analogy with the inefficiency of the ad tech industry. Both creepy, both not particularly good at what they do
It could be civilization-destroyingly successful if it included tapping into social media databases combined with facial recognition software and AR glasses.
People adapt faster than you can run studies large enough to be practically useful. Any strategy produced might be effective early on, but then the patterns would become evident (people do tend to gossip about their hookups) and from there they're a red flag, same as cliched pick-up lines are now.
Here's a simple example of a strategy that would be hard to obsolete: walk around campus scanning girls' faces. Cross-reference them with girls who have recently posted anything like "I'm so lonely I'll go out with the next guy who talks to me" on social media. Go talk to them.
The following exchange is interesting to read in the context of a dystopian mass surveillance society (John 4:16-19):
Jesus told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."
"I have no husband," the woman replied.
Jesus said to her, "You are correct to say that you have no husband. In fact, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. You have spoken truthfully."
"Sir," the woman said, "I see that You are a prophet."
The following exchange is interesting to read in the context of a dystopian mass surveillance society (John 4:16-19):
Jesus told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."
"I have no husband," the woman replied.
Jesus said to her, "You are correct to say that you have no husband. In fact, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. You have spoken truthfully."
"Sir," the woman said, "I see that You are a prophet."
That's like saying that money is evil, let's just abolish the concept.
Won't happen.
Won't happen.
It's not like that at all.
This is creepy: Adblock engine stops me from loading this post and the entry seems to have vanished from HN.
Yeah- it says 59 comments but somehow they are all hidden...
That's because a large discussion broke out underneath a comment that may not have been the most high quality?
A few people said on the last article that the URL was blocked, perhaps something to do with "advertising" being in the URL. Also, no conspiracy on the disappearing comments, an ad industry person showed up in defence and got immediately flamed, which is why the post dropped pages. Cheers.
Got it- thanks. It really fell several pages but things do when the discussions become less constructive.
HN mods will collapse comment threads if they devolve into a flame war or low-quality discussion. That's what happened here.
We need to fix this issue. This data and these tracking methods will be used to hurt people in the future. It's imperative we fix these issues
But not just for adtech. Holding personal data needs to be so dangerous that most companies won't do it unless they absolutely must. That goes for credit card companies, "loyalty card" programs, magazines selling your contact info when you sign up so you get junk-mailed for 100 other magazines a week later, credit agencies. Make a major leak trigger such a large fine it's a death sentence for most companies, and give those harmed first dibs on company assets. Watch the market take care of the problem as insurers, creditors, and investors do their stuff in response to that change.
I agree with the sentiment but how? Google & Facebook are in a powerful position, and its a complex issue that the general population (let alone politicians) don't fully understand. The author acknowledges that GDPR is fine, but doesn't address the underlying issue.
Some system has an option like "show personalized ads", it will show ADs based on your data, but for normal user who don't take notice of any AD, is there any advantage to enable it?