←back to thread

604 points wyldfire | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mycologos ◴[] No.26350071[source]
One of my pet meta-theories about Hacker News is that the frustration expressed over several apparently different stories really has a single source: Hacker News likes the internet of 10-20 years ago a lot more than the average person.

One place this shows up is a frequently-expressed sentiment that the internet is a less magical, less weird, and more corporate place than it was 10-20 years ago. Part of this may be because SEO has diluted the voices of individual creators. But part of it is also because way more average, everyday, tech-unsavvy people are on the internet now.

Another example is the periodic highlighting of somewhat garish HTML-based websites. I like these too! My own personal website falls in this category! But as far as I know, the generic internet user likes the generic slick-graphics-and-whitespace style, and so go the websites that want to attract them.

More relevant to the topic at hand, many comments in this thread argue that targeted ads are unnecessary for a functional internet, since the internet of 20 years ago seemed to work just fine without targeted ads. But, again, it's less clear to me that general internet users -- that is, mostly people who never experienced the internet of 20 years ago -- have the same preference.

It's funny, because I'm to a large extent on HN's side on this one. But my enthusiasm is tempered by my sneaking suspicion that the other side is a lot bigger, and my side is actually powered by more elitism and nostalgia than I thought.

replies(21): >>26350120 #>>26350181 #>>26350476 #>>26350669 #>>26350739 #>>26350880 #>>26350916 #>>26351088 #>>26351504 #>>26351687 #>>26351861 #>>26351976 #>>26351982 #>>26352045 #>>26352261 #>>26352709 #>>26352710 #>>26353682 #>>26355085 #>>26355515 #>>26366640 #
40four ◴[] No.26351982[source]
I don’t understand the line of logic here. What does nostalgia for the internet of twenty years ago have anything to do with the way big advertising takes advantage of us now?

They use underhanded, arguably immoral, technological tricks that most general internet users might not even be aware of, much less understand how to defend themselves. It has nothing to do with the fact they never experienced the ‘old’ internet, they just don’t understand how or why they are being taken advantage of.

The HN crowd isn’t mad about obscene privacy practices because of nostalgia. They’re mad about it because they understand the actual technological mechanisms behind it, and how they work. And why the way big advertising exploits those mechanisms is so f’ed up.

Edit: Sorry, maybe I’m getting too angry. I think I see what you were going for, about many HN frequenters pining for the days of old. But I don’t agree with the idea that general internet users who weren’t online back then are okay with the current state of big advertising tracking technology. I think they just have no idea how or why it works.

I think many people are confused and frustrated that seemingly every random site or social media app they use seems to be aware of everything they do and look at online.

replies(3): >>26352975 #>>26353901 #>>26356956 #
cm2012 ◴[] No.26352975[source]
Besides encouraging people to buy things you might think they don't need, what's an actual harm people experience from targeted ads as opposed to non targeted ads?
replies(9): >>26353125 #>>26353199 #>>26353468 #>>26353558 #>>26353603 #>>26353731 #>>26354033 #>>26355011 #>>26357952 #
1. otabdeveloper4 ◴[] No.26353558{3}[source]
(Disclaimer: I've been working in adtech for over 15 years.)

Advertisers and publishers don't really want tracking and data collection. It carries huge costs (technical as well as social) with very little benefit for advertising. Advertisers want statistically significant and unbiased population samples, and that's not something you can arrive at by blindly throwing more data at it.

Data collection by Google et al., is really because they eventually want to pivot from adtech to govtech - think "social credit" or "Minority Report". From their vantage point of course it's a much more lucrative and advantageous place to be than a mere seller of internet clickbait.

replies(1): >>26365567 #
2. 40four ◴[] No.26365567[source]
I appreciate you disclosing your experience in the ad-tech industry. But I’m not sure I understand your point.

It sounds like from your experience, the concept of FLoC from the main article is exactly where Google and other want to be? They want legit population samples versus the ‘noise’ of huge amounts of random individual use data?

But when they are trying to market it to us as users, as a ‘privacy win’, that’s hard to swallow when you’re saying their end goal is some sort of ‘govtech’ or ‘social credit’ system.

replies(1): >>26373712 #
3. otabdeveloper4 ◴[] No.26373712[source]
> It sounds like from your experience, the concept of FLoC from the main article is exactly where Google and other want to be?

Yes, if it can be made into some objective standard, and not just another "trust me, I'm Google".

> But when they are trying to market it to us as users, as a ‘privacy win’, that’s hard to swallow when you’re saying their end goal is some sort of ‘govtech’ or ‘social credit’ system.

Yes, because Google is not just an adtech company. Obviously they are more than that. (Or at least they want to be.)