←back to thread

604 points wyldfire | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.837s | 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 #
ErikVandeWater ◴[] No.26350120[source]
I would say that the average HN user isn't so much opposed to targetted ads as they are opposed to organizations that are unaccountable to them storing their personal information in an insecure way. And Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. all provided information to the NSA so it could illegally spy on almost every American with access to the internet.
replies(3): >>26350183 #>>26351316 #>>26352578 #
jefftk ◴[] No.26351316[source]
If that were the case, then wouldn't you expect the average HN user to like FLoC? Targeted ads, where the personal information is stored securely in your browser.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

replies(3): >>26351577 #>>26353788 #>>26355971 #
1. rswail ◴[] No.26353788[source]
Because having read the EFF article, it is clear that personal information is not secured to my browser. By definition, putting me into a category exposes my personal information, in a summarized form that is potentially reversible.

It enhances the ability to fingerprint me, effectively exposing my browsing history.

If Google offered it as an "opt in", giving me some reward for sharing my personal information that Google sells to advertisers, then that is a fair deal. In return for some form of sharing the revenue, Google gets to sell my information.

But that's not the model. It's still the "you're a product" model where Google not only gets to sell my search history, but now also continues to sell my browsing history.

I can see how it benefits Google and how it gives them/you something to sell to advertisers, but what's in it for me?

replies(1): >>26356152 #
2. jefftk ◴[] No.26356152[source]
This isn't information that Google would sell to advertisers: the proposal is that it be available to all JavaScript in the browser: https://github.com/WICG/floc

What you get in return is that ad-supported sites you visit are better funded because they can show better-targeted advertising.