←back to thread

550 points polskibus | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
locklock ◴[] No.19116039[source]
I'm really thankful I haven't yet had a job where all I'm developing is new ways to force people to see ads. Imagine working on a 'feature' like this for weeks or months, and the end result is simply that people who don't want to see ads now have to see ads.
replies(18): >>19116155 #>>19116176 #>>19116284 #>>19116297 #>>19116323 #>>19116487 #>>19116513 #>>19116720 #>>19116769 #>>19116867 #>>19116940 #>>19117235 #>>19117240 #>>19117870 #>>19118148 #>>19118153 #>>19118697 #>>19119394 #
duxup ◴[] No.19116769[source]
It sounds like a fun challenge.

It's just ads. If we're talking about some ad for a coffee maker, whatever.

Now their whole selling data to unscrupulous folks, taking money from parents via their kids, selling fake news that makes people hate other people (now that gets into the ad space...) ....

That's where I'd want to nope out.

replies(8): >>19116963 #>>19116992 #>>19117001 #>>19117002 #>>19118376 #>>19118958 #>>19119754 #>>19120219 #
asdkhadsj ◴[] No.19117002[source]
Thank you. I feel like ads have such a bad rap because of the state of the internet. Yet, what does everyone expect? Is it shocking that content providers want money for their product?

And yes, I know, some sites and ads do terrible things. The actively hurt viewership. BUT, isn't that the same with everything? Even my groceries are getting worse as companies seek ways to increase profits without pissing me off; they swap out quality ingredients with cheaper ingredients. They change the shape of the bottle to reduce volume and hope I don't notice that the price effectively went up. Etc.

My point is not in defense of these practices. Rather, I'm defending "no shit" in all of this; welcome to the real world. Everyone is going to try and take and make as much as they can before it starts to actively show a negative impact.

So who is to really blame? Us, of course. Consumers of these practices are largely okay with it as is.

So yea, I don't have a problem with ads. They sort themselves out because people will stop using the products. I do have a problem with selling out data though, as people are largely unaware of the consequences and severity of what is actually happening. Ads however though? Who cares.

edit: Sidenote, I imagine an argument could be made that all and any ads are terrible. I definitely could agree with that, but getting rid of all advertisements across all mediums online or offline seems a tall order, and out of scope for this discussion heh.

replies(14): >>19117133 #>>19117192 #>>19117329 #>>19117387 #>>19117474 #>>19117492 #>>19117576 #>>19117798 #>>19118079 #>>19118111 #>>19118157 #>>19118373 #>>19119048 #>>19131235 #
andrepd ◴[] No.19117576[source]
To me ads are fundamentally about misleading you, manipulating you, or in short: making you do something that you wouldn't do otherwise. This to me is morally wrong on a base level. Advertisement is an attempt to attack/manipulate your vulnerable mammal brain to make you do something against your interest (be it buying a product, voting on someone, etc). In other words, to do something that you wouldn't do rationally, or wouldn't do without this prodding.
replies(5): >>19117706 #>>19118013 #>>19118694 #>>19118715 #>>19119427 #
JacobJans ◴[] No.19118013[source]
This is a very immature view of advertising, that, unfortunately many advertisers share -- and it leads to scummy ads, with no eye on the long term relationship with the person viewing the ad.

However, many ads are not deceptive in any way, and instead simply offer something of value to people who may be interested, without any deceit, psychological trick, or ulterior motive.

Just because there are bad ads does not mean that all advertising is bad.

replies(4): >>19118128 #>>19118568 #>>19119872 #>>19120721 #
1. badpun ◴[] No.19118568[source]
If I were king, all ads would have to be black text on white background, containing ONLY the name of the product/service, its description and advertised merits. The description would have to consist of well-defined and falsifiable statements only.
replies(5): >>19118764 #>>19118808 #>>19119455 #>>19119550 #>>19120951 #
2. jachee ◴[] No.19118764[source]
And the product's non-obfuscated cost.
3. sokoloff ◴[] No.19118808[source]
Prediction: in your kingdom, product names would evolve to become "World's Best Hair Tonic" with "World's Best" being the company's brand/trade name...
replies(2): >>19119846 #>>19134836 #
4. wolrah ◴[] No.19119455[source]
What Google AdWords used to be, just plain text that was generally pretty relevant to whatever you were viewing, clearly defined as an ad.
replies(1): >>19121787 #
5. bartread ◴[] No.19119550[source]
> If I were king, all ads would have to be black text on white background, containing ONLY the name of the product/service, its description and advertised merits. The description would have to consist of well-defined and falsifiable statements only.

Sorry, but for a lot of products this approach is simply ridiculous. I want to know what I'm buying looks like before I buy it in many cases. E.g., clothes, sportswear, footwear, furniture, electric guitars - even food.

replies(1): >>19121782 #
6. russh ◴[] No.19119846[source]
Except it would be: World's Best(tm) Hair Tonic -- I think I could parse that correctly.
7. satvikpendem ◴[] No.19120951[source]
If you go to your local supermarket, you will see many branded items with varied fonts and pictures. This packaging is essentially an ad for the item. If you removed that, which you could do, as some brands like Brandless have done, people would not know what to buy. The packaging itself provides value. So too with ads online.
8. badpun ◴[] No.19121782[source]
You’re right - we should allow one photo - presenting product only (i.e. without pictures of scandily clad women used to sell for example wallpaper paste, as is common in my country), against a clear background.
9. badpun ◴[] No.19121787[source]
Yep that was pretty cool, I respected Google for it.
10. e_proxus ◴[] No.19134836[source]
If I remember correctly, calling products "best" or similar is illegal in Sweden unless you can point to verifiable neutral source such as product tests etc. I'm sure it's corruptible to some extent, but at least it is possible to prevent these things at large.