“The best minds of my generation are thinking how to make people click ads”(ybrikman.com)
ybrikman.com
“The best minds of my generation are thinking how to make people click ads”
https://www.ybrikman.com/writing/2014/08/10/the-best-minds-of-my-generation-are/
65 comments
If there's any lesson that sums up the way the world works, it is: people follow incentives
If you want folks to work on the cure for cancer or ending world hunger or curtailing climate change, then you're going to have to pay them enough to do it. The reality is that people have families, people have futures to think about, people have material desires. You can chastise them for making personal choices that prioritize their needs, but as long as a climatologist makes 1/10th of the salary of a software engineer at Google, that's not going to change.
Is happiness found in wealth? Not at all. But it's like fat and sugar, we are literally programmed to acquire resources. It was just that for most of human history, it wasn't actually possible to overdo it.
If you want folks to work on the cure for cancer or ending world hunger or curtailing climate change, then you're going to have to pay them enough to do it. The reality is that people have families, people have futures to think about, people have material desires. You can chastise them for making personal choices that prioritize their needs, but as long as a climatologist makes 1/10th of the salary of a software engineer at Google, that's not going to change.
Is happiness found in wealth? Not at all. But it's like fat and sugar, we are literally programmed to acquire resources. It was just that for most of human history, it wasn't actually possible to overdo it.
> You can chastise them for making personal choices that prioritize their needs, but as long as a climatologist makes 1/10th of the salary of a software engineer at Google, that's not going to change.
The issue is not that we aren’t willing to pay a climatologist 10x more. It is that companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook can lobby to continue to externalize costs and internalize profits that allow them to retain the ability to pay a software engineer 10x more than someone working for the common good. No one votes on this. It is entrenched in a broken system that is powered by money.
The issue is not that we aren’t willing to pay a climatologist 10x more. It is that companies like Google and Amazon and Facebook can lobby to continue to externalize costs and internalize profits that allow them to retain the ability to pay a software engineer 10x more than someone working for the common good. No one votes on this. It is entrenched in a broken system that is powered by money.
It's not their lobbying that got them to where they are today. Both of those companies delivered tremendous value to many, many people, some of whom gave them tons of money in return.
I agree with you that the society we live in sucks in terms of delivering resources to the best products, but I personally, even after anything, wouldn't want to live without good search engines (i.e. Google).
Facebook I personally use less, but I know that so many people derive amazing value from it, and who am I to say they're wrong?
I agree with you that the society we live in sucks in terms of delivering resources to the best products, but I personally, even after anything, wouldn't want to live without good search engines (i.e. Google).
Facebook I personally use less, but I know that so many people derive amazing value from it, and who am I to say they're wrong?
> incredibly detrimental effects on people mental health
> the state of mis-information, and the creation of tooling that manipulates the way people think.
Strong words. Do you have any evidence behind them?
Like, books manipulate the way people think, should we ban books? How about newspapers? Where do you draw the line?
Strong words. Do you have any evidence behind them?
Like, books manipulate the way people think, should we ban books? How about newspapers? Where do you draw the line?
We don't ban books. We criticize books and hold their authors accountable. Should we criticize advertising? Where do you draw the line?
We should definitely criticise advertising. I like to focus on how much it doesn't work, and how much of the industry is borderline fraud.
I worry a lot less about it manipulating people, because it's pretty bad at that. Maybe at the margins (and that's great for large businesses), but advertising can only push you towards something, it's not going to drag you kicking and screaming.
I worry a lot less about it manipulating people, because it's pretty bad at that. Maybe at the margins (and that's great for large businesses), but advertising can only push you towards something, it's not going to drag you kicking and screaming.
I draw a distinction between introducing ideas to people and manipulating the way people think.
Reading a book, digesting ideas and having a conversation in your mind with the author is incredibly healthy and IMO should be promoted.
Optimizing for "engagement" requires that you offer the mind an endless set of distractions in lieu of good engaging content. Over time the mind starts to degrade to a point where its difficult to digest long-form content and enjoy it as a much healthier habit.
Reading a book, digesting ideas and having a conversation in your mind with the author is incredibly healthy and IMO should be promoted.
Optimizing for "engagement" requires that you offer the mind an endless set of distractions in lieu of good engaging content. Over time the mind starts to degrade to a point where its difficult to digest long-form content and enjoy it as a much healthier habit.
> Optimizing for "engagement" requires that you offer the mind an endless set of distractions in lieu of good engaging content. Over time the mind starts to degrade to a point where its difficult to digest long-form content and enjoy it as a much healthier habit.
This is another really strong claim. I find it odd that most people are so sceptical of the claims established by social science research, except when it confirms a previously held theory.
TV optimises for engagement. Do you think that TV lead to the destruction of people's ability to engage meaningfully with the world, or is that distinction reserved for products invented after (I assume) you were born.
Cos I remember how much everyone gave out about TV (and I was one of those people!) and to see the entire argument wholesale lifted and applied to a completely different medium of communication is disconcerting, to say the least.
This is another really strong claim. I find it odd that most people are so sceptical of the claims established by social science research, except when it confirms a previously held theory.
TV optimises for engagement. Do you think that TV lead to the destruction of people's ability to engage meaningfully with the world, or is that distinction reserved for products invented after (I assume) you were born.
Cos I remember how much everyone gave out about TV (and I was one of those people!) and to see the entire argument wholesale lifted and applied to a completely different medium of communication is disconcerting, to say the least.
Your TV (at least in the past ) could not collect the following information:
- What ads did you stay for ?
- What ads did you listen to, or turn the volume up for ?
- What ads did you hear and see 50% of with 50% of the pixels being on screen at the time you heard them?
- How many times did you see an ad ?
- Whats the average times that an ad is seen before you might convert in an offhand channel ( including offline credit card purchases )?
- What ads changed your scroll velocity - if only for a few 100 milliseconds ?
- What content changed your scroll velocity ?
- Where were you when spent less time on your phone ?
- Where were you when you were more susceptible to a type of ad ?
These aren't signals that you might yourself notice, but these are being collected. They are being collected on almost every website you visit, and an incredibly large data set is being collected. This training set is for you and you alone, but similar training sets can be found.
This training set is now used to determine what content to show you next so that you can stick around for another ad.
This is 'optimizing for engagement'. We are well past the stage of "It's the superbowl so lets play an Axe commercial'.
Some of this sounds fairly hyperbolic to folks who haven't spent time in the industry - but I promise you this is very commonplace non-controversial data collection in the adtech space.
- What ads did you stay for ?
- What ads did you listen to, or turn the volume up for ?
- What ads did you hear and see 50% of with 50% of the pixels being on screen at the time you heard them?
- How many times did you see an ad ?
- Whats the average times that an ad is seen before you might convert in an offhand channel ( including offline credit card purchases )?
- What ads changed your scroll velocity - if only for a few 100 milliseconds ?
- What content changed your scroll velocity ?
- Where were you when spent less time on your phone ?
- Where were you when you were more susceptible to a type of ad ?
These aren't signals that you might yourself notice, but these are being collected. They are being collected on almost every website you visit, and an incredibly large data set is being collected. This training set is for you and you alone, but similar training sets can be found.
This training set is now used to determine what content to show you next so that you can stick around for another ad.
This is 'optimizing for engagement'. We are well past the stage of "It's the superbowl so lets play an Axe commercial'.
Some of this sounds fairly hyperbolic to folks who haven't spent time in the industry - but I promise you this is very commonplace non-controversial data collection in the adtech space.
> Some of this sounds fairly hyperbolic to folks who haven't spent time in the industry - but I promise you this is very commonplace non-controversial data collection in the adtech space.
I spent well over half a decade in adtech, and while I don't dispute that this data is collected, I definitely don't think that it's particularly useful.
Fundamentally, the best information to use to predict what you'll buy is what you looked on on a site/app and what you've bought in the past.
The rest of the stuff you list out has really, really small effect sizes, it does make a difference if you're Facebook or Google (though the effects are still just as small) but given their scale, it's meaningful revenue.
Additionally, all of this data is incredibly sparse, so it may help at the margin, but definitely doesn't help overall. That's even assuming that the data can be reliably linked to an individual, which in most cases is definitely not true.
I think that you appear to be concerned more about the tracking than the marketing itself, is that a fair assessment of your position?
I spent well over half a decade in adtech, and while I don't dispute that this data is collected, I definitely don't think that it's particularly useful.
Fundamentally, the best information to use to predict what you'll buy is what you looked on on a site/app and what you've bought in the past.
The rest of the stuff you list out has really, really small effect sizes, it does make a difference if you're Facebook or Google (though the effects are still just as small) but given their scale, it's meaningful revenue.
Additionally, all of this data is incredibly sparse, so it may help at the margin, but definitely doesn't help overall. That's even assuming that the data can be reliably linked to an individual, which in most cases is definitely not true.
I think that you appear to be concerned more about the tracking than the marketing itself, is that a fair assessment of your position?
> tooling that manipulates the way people think.
... this, being perhaps the most troubling part.-
... this, being perhaps the most troubling part.-
Don’t listen to this stuff. At least these companies pay fair wages. After decades of avoiding FAANGs because of misplaced idealism from quotes like this I realize that it’s no more noble to be underpaid, under appreciated and overworked at a “moral” company than to be treated with dignity at a FAANG (with dignity at this point being simply defined as a 40 hour work week and enough money for one person to buy a home in the HCOL city where the job is located, which 90% of tech jobs still don’t provide).
I got 99 problems but living in the elite regions of the country aint one. You could always skip 1 night at the bar and purchase a neighborhood of mansions in my state.
[deleted]
> At least these companies pay fair wages.
All companies pay you the smallest amount that they think will keep you from leaving. Average wages being high at FAANGs is mostly a function of employees of said companies desiring a high wage and having other opportunities.
If you're making less, it's either because you're not good at negotiating/selling your skills or you don't actually have better opportunities. You can work on either or both of these things. (or you're actually happy with less and working on a mission to change the world. Good on you if so.)
I have not worked at a FAANG and have not had problems finding fair pay and a sensible work-life balance. I have a house that's fully paid off (and I'm single, never married) in a second-tier city's suburb and about to purchase my first rental property and I've never hit the startup equity lottery. I don't even live at the first house; I put up a relative there. I rent an apartment in NY. Still under 40, started this career in my 30s.
And yes, for a very long time, my job was making people click on ads. The pay was quite good.
All companies pay you the smallest amount that they think will keep you from leaving. Average wages being high at FAANGs is mostly a function of employees of said companies desiring a high wage and having other opportunities.
If you're making less, it's either because you're not good at negotiating/selling your skills or you don't actually have better opportunities. You can work on either or both of these things. (or you're actually happy with less and working on a mission to change the world. Good on you if so.)
I have not worked at a FAANG and have not had problems finding fair pay and a sensible work-life balance. I have a house that's fully paid off (and I'm single, never married) in a second-tier city's suburb and about to purchase my first rental property and I've never hit the startup equity lottery. I don't even live at the first house; I put up a relative there. I rent an apartment in NY. Still under 40, started this career in my 30s.
And yes, for a very long time, my job was making people click on ads. The pay was quite good.
Just from a debate that is almost similar in nature. One person posed a question: would you leave a high-paying job that is in a toxic workplace?
Not so many were in the affirmative. Someone even added that they would rather stick with it and remedy this with therapy later on.
Not so many were in the affirmative. Someone even added that they would rather stick with it and remedy this with therapy later on.
Read the article. This is one of those where the content is the opposite of the HN headline.
Blergh. Thanks. Yeah, I should have done that first this time.
sorry, but did you read the blog post ?
the title is truncated here ..
the full title is:
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads—and that's ok."
the full title is:
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads—and that's ok."
It was always disheartening putting my intellect to work to trying to figure out why popunders weren't working for us following the latest release of browser X, when they were still clearly working for porn sites.
...then we looked at how the porn sites were doing it, and were horrified (admittedly, with a tinge of professional respect for them having solved it), and once more, pleaded with our business managers to just give up on popunders, it's leading to devs leaving and/or developing drinking problems.
...then we looked at how the porn sites were doing it, and were horrified (admittedly, with a tinge of professional respect for them having solved it), and once more, pleaded with our business managers to just give up on popunders, it's leading to devs leaving and/or developing drinking problems.
Tax ads. Put the money into important stuff.
People shouldn't be faulted for taking a high paying job if that is where the opportunities are for them. But we do have a system which is generating outcomes most people aren't happy with. So the rules should change. Maybe just a little at a time.
Our choices aren't only "Ban ads" or "Keep doing advertising the way we are doing it now". This isn't an A/B test. A small tax on advertising would be a good place to start.
People shouldn't be faulted for taking a high paying job if that is where the opportunities are for them. But we do have a system which is generating outcomes most people aren't happy with. So the rules should change. Maybe just a little at a time.
Our choices aren't only "Ban ads" or "Keep doing advertising the way we are doing it now". This isn't an A/B test. A small tax on advertising would be a good place to start.
> A small tax on advertising would be a good place to start.
That's a thought ...
That's a thought ...
This has actually been discussed by a nobel-prize winner in economics:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/tax-facebook-goog...
and some states are already following suit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/technology/maryland-digit...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/tax-facebook-goog...
and some states are already following suit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/technology/maryland-digit...
Why did you cut out the "and that's ok" part from the title?
I believe that HN has limits on how long a headline can be.
I agree that the omission changes the meaning.
I agree that the omission changes the meaning.
I feel like the author is really missing the point of this criticism. It's probably fine on an individual basis to work for (most) adtech companies like google. What sucks is the overall system which incentivizes the creation of arguably dangerous products and behaviours, even if by chance some of that money spills over into being spent on better causes.
> incentivizes the creation of arguably dangerous products and behaviours
Can you supply more information about this? Are you talking about the ads or the products themselves?
Can you supply more information about this? Are you talking about the ads or the products themselves?
The article was not at all what I expected!
I agree that it's hard to gauge the usefulness of applying the best minds to do banal work. After all that the work of making people click on ads is what allowed Google to benefit the world with stuff like Google Maps. But it also created a monopoly: for every Google Maps, there's a Waze left in its wake.
What's truly disheartening about this mercenary culture is not that one can't predict the usefulness of making people click on ads, but that there are so many other tasks which are patently more useful - but whose sponsors have drastically smaller pockets than a FAANG. I'm not talking about lofty projects, like curing cancer and flying to Mars. I'm talking about banal stuff that, at some point of another, affects everyone's. Like trying to navigate a government's website.
I agree that it's hard to gauge the usefulness of applying the best minds to do banal work. After all that the work of making people click on ads is what allowed Google to benefit the world with stuff like Google Maps. But it also created a monopoly: for every Google Maps, there's a Waze left in its wake.
What's truly disheartening about this mercenary culture is not that one can't predict the usefulness of making people click on ads, but that there are so many other tasks which are patently more useful - but whose sponsors have drastically smaller pockets than a FAANG. I'm not talking about lofty projects, like curing cancer and flying to Mars. I'm talking about banal stuff that, at some point of another, affects everyone's. Like trying to navigate a government's website.
> there are so many other tasks which are patently more useful - but whose sponsors have drastically smaller pockets than a FAANG.
A pity, actually.-
A pity, actually.-
It’s funny how we seem to be going meta on ads, and I think it could be good to refocus attention on things that produce better value.
Ads are powerful, but I think they maximize on value to the seller at the expense of the buyer.
Many of the big problems we’ve had have a lot of responsibility on ads, I think: cigarettes, opioids, political action committees, mass consumerism in general, sugar/diabetes, pharmaceutical prices, etc etc.
I think many of these crises are made possible or at least worse through ads that change people’s perception to move them toward more negative behavior. I think this is like the urban legend of hypnosis in that you can’t make people do what they don’t want to, but you can shift just a few percent and that still makes tons of money.
Drinking cokes every day, eating fast food every day, “talking to your doctor about Foo drug,” the list goes on and on. People like doing this stuff so making them do more by showing ads is just a function of ad spend.
Ads are powerful, but I think they maximize on value to the seller at the expense of the buyer.
Many of the big problems we’ve had have a lot of responsibility on ads, I think: cigarettes, opioids, political action committees, mass consumerism in general, sugar/diabetes, pharmaceutical prices, etc etc.
I think many of these crises are made possible or at least worse through ads that change people’s perception to move them toward more negative behavior. I think this is like the urban legend of hypnosis in that you can’t make people do what they don’t want to, but you can shift just a few percent and that still makes tons of money.
Drinking cokes every day, eating fast food every day, “talking to your doctor about Foo drug,” the list goes on and on. People like doing this stuff so making them do more by showing ads is just a function of ad spend.
Blaming ads for people's choices isn't fair nor is it any accurate due to how simplistic this attribution is. Remove the ads of out the equation and people will still go for that Pepsi. That's what they want.
I don’t think ads are solely to blame, but they influence behavior. Without ads people will still drink Pepsi, but with ads, they drink more.
I’m fine with ads. The problem I have is that the best minds of my generation are thinking about how to spy on me.
> the best minds of my generation are thinking about how to spy on me.
That is, indeed, far worse. I guess the "spying" is kind of impliied in the banality of adtech the quote deals with ...
That is, indeed, far worse. I guess the "spying" is kind of impliied in the banality of adtech the quote deals with ...
A century ago, any reasonably intelligent and diligent person could join the business world as a "clerk," organizing and arranging information in support of business operations. There was a vast workforce of clerks. They probably made decent money. Nobody lamented the loss of the best minds of their generation.
Was not Einsten himself once a patent office clerk?
Then again, some argue, and I see that, that the very post put them in touch with the leading ideas of his time, and gave him a way to practice and improve his abstract thinking, having to practically picture all those mechanisms and contraptions ...> That is, they are building software for their own personal amusement or financial gain instead of working for the benefit of us all.
Writing software for their own personal amusement or financial gain is perfectly acceptable. Advertising is perfectly acceptable. The part of that crosses the line is "thinking how to make people click ads" since it violates people's autonomy. It is used to rationalise crossing other ethical boundaries ranging from respecting people's desire for privacy to outright psychological manipulation.
Writing software for their own personal amusement or financial gain is perfectly acceptable. Advertising is perfectly acceptable. The part of that crosses the line is "thinking how to make people click ads" since it violates people's autonomy. It is used to rationalise crossing other ethical boundaries ranging from respecting people's desire for privacy to outright psychological manipulation.
There's a quote, which I absolutely can't find the source for, it's something like geniuses are toiling away in factories.
I think it's a bit arrogant to think you're some type of genius who if only you needn't work, would be able to solve all the world's problems. I'm more than fine with being a cog in the machine, with my dream being retirement at 40. After that I'll work on my music, and video games full time.
I think it's a bit arrogant to think you're some type of genius who if only you needn't work, would be able to solve all the world's problems. I'm more than fine with being a cog in the machine, with my dream being retirement at 40. After that I'll work on my music, and video games full time.
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
Jeff Hammerbacher
Jeff Hammerbacher
The title is missing the (IMO crucial) "and that's ok" from the original post.
Definitely reveals the people who post lengthy commentary on the article without having clicked through it, eh?
Was this posted in reaction to the Ubiquiti ad discussion on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628198?
In a way.-
I found the Hammerbacher quote there, and it piqued my curiosity.How many small niche businesses have been created around hyper targeted ads? I don't know why everyone wants to go back to a million ads for mortgages and feminine hygiene products.
I don't think I've ever deliberately clicked on an ad, in fact I work very hard to block them out and ignore them.
It's funny because unless there are some Jedi mind tricks going on which made me not realize my actions, I can honestly say the same. I've never deliberately clicked an ad in decades of using the Internet.
[deleted]
This article completely misses the point of the original quote. The original quote is not 'they could be working in better fields', it's 'the entire structural incentives of capitalism are messed up'.
And yet here on HN it's the workers themselves who are often blamed for choosing to work for these soulless tech companies while they're free to go cure cancer at some startup.
Free? Hardly. Nobody is free to do anything medical. You need to comply with a whole suite of regulations put there for patient safety. I think that's part of the allure of adtech; nobody's telling you you need to get your CLIA certificate updated to cover every new A/B test. And if you screw up, nothing bad happens. Unless you're targeting people with Bad Stuff, I guess.
This. The OP is fighting a straw man. The argument opposed is a critic of the system, not a broad attack on individuals.
People really struggle to cope with structural vs individual issues.
TBH, I'd expect programmers to be slightly better at understanding situations where each side of a communication is doing things that it things are correct - or necessarily defensive - while the other side thinks they are wrong. Architectural issues, where there is no specific wrong line of code to point to.
TBH, I'd expect programmers to be slightly better at understanding situations where each side of a communication is doing things that it things are correct - or necessarily defensive - while the other side thinks they are wrong. Architectural issues, where there is no specific wrong line of code to point to.
> not 'they could be working in better fields', it's 'the entire structural incentives of capitalism are messed up'.
Can't both be true, I sincerely wonder?
Can't both be true, I sincerely wonder?
"There is a meme going around that too many programmers are wasting their careers working on meaningless software: they spend all their time trying to get people to click on ads, they aren’t tackling the important stuff, and they aren’t solving the biggest problems of today. It’s as if all programmers should drop what they are doing and instead try to cure cancer, end world hunger, and generally save the world.
I’m going to call bullshit.
First of all, don’t knock ads—or, to be more accurate, don’t not knock making money. The most well intentioned company in the world can’t accomplish any of its lofty goals if it has no money, and for many companies, ads are the best way to earn that money."
I’m going to call bullshit.
First of all, don’t knock ads—or, to be more accurate, don’t not knock making money. The most well intentioned company in the world can’t accomplish any of its lofty goals if it has no money, and for many companies, ads are the best way to earn that money."
I spent like 8 months working for a company that specialized in home HVAC contracting advertisement. I'm not going to say the best minds of our generation were working on this particular problem, but still. What a fucking waste of human life.
Think about this market. People need air conditioning services. They're going to get air conditioning services. The only real question is which service operators get their business. It's zero sum. Every cent spent on marketing is valuable to individual businesses, costs other businesses. Marketing and adtech are necessary as part of an arms race, but it's net loss for the world. You're just spending money on market conflict. That company has produced nothing of value: they only attempt to divert flows of money from some people to other people, entirely independent of merit or value provided.
Think about this market. People need air conditioning services. They're going to get air conditioning services. The only real question is which service operators get their business. It's zero sum. Every cent spent on marketing is valuable to individual businesses, costs other businesses. Marketing and adtech are necessary as part of an arms race, but it's net loss for the world. You're just spending money on market conflict. That company has produced nothing of value: they only attempt to divert flows of money from some people to other people, entirely independent of merit or value provided.
So the only businesses that should exist are the ones that already do?
Like, marketing and ads have problems, but specifically Google and Facebook have helped millions of small businesses actually make a living.
We ban marketing and all that goes away (well actually it just gets recycled into other approaches).
Like, marketing and ads have problems, but specifically Google and Facebook have helped millions of small businesses actually make a living.
We ban marketing and all that goes away (well actually it just gets recycled into other approaches).
Or: gain market share by building a better product, or offering better service, or something else actually useful to the end user. Simply out-advertising your rivals using borrowed money while offering exactly the same product works to nobodys benefit.
How does one discover said companies providing a better service?
As an example, would Tesla be as successful without the massive PR efforts of Elon Musk? Is that marketing or something else?
As an example, would Tesla be as successful without the massive PR efforts of Elon Musk? Is that marketing or something else?
The real joke is, that advertisement costs are ultimately paid by the consumer.
On the downvotes, (and flagging, while at it ...
... might I bring attention to "rule" 42a.1 ...
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26590231
... as elucidated by @tomrod? :)
Not as much on account of deserving upvotes, but at least on account of not deserving the flak.-
... might I bring attention to "rule" 42a.1 ...
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26590231
... as elucidated by @tomrod? :)
Not as much on account of deserving upvotes, but at least on account of not deserving the flak.-
Sorry to break it to you, you don't get to wash your hands clean of it's incredibly detrimental effects on people mental health, the state of mis-information, and the creation of tooling that manipulates the way people think.
Ads made money before hyper-targeting, and will continue to make money long after. Most folks in Adtech are making an incredibly comfortable living - while ignoring the collective harm that is being done by the industry.
No matter where you work, it's worth asking yourself a few questions.
* What is the mission of my company ?
* What is the revenue generating unit of my company ?
* Are the two aligned ?
* Am I comfortable with the answers to the above questions ?