←back to thread

991 points smitop | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.267s | source
Show context
edwardbernays ◴[] No.44330167[source]
If they ran less hostile ads, people wouldn't be as hostile to watching their ads. Some of the ads they run are just ridiculous and awful. Ads for scams, soft-core porn ads, just the worst of the worst.
replies(7): >>44330188 #>>44330248 #>>44330287 #>>44330319 #>>44330457 #>>44330502 #>>44330651 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.44330248[source]
Where are you located? I've never seen any of those.

Pretty much all of my YouTube ads are for TV shows, movies, cars, mobile games, consumer products, and various consumer services. Volkswagen, Dove, TurboTax, etc. All incredibly mainstream.

Maybe you're located in a country or region maintain advertisers avoid?

replies(5): >>44330281 #>>44330283 #>>44330335 #>>44331051 #>>44332382 #
edwardbernays ◴[] No.44330283[source]
I'm in America. I only see these scummy ads I talk about, and I assume it's because I'm extremely aggressive about preventing myself from being tracked and profiled. My friends made the horrible mistake of looking into cryptocurrency on Google while signed into their account, so they got targeted by scum crypto ads.
replies(2): >>44330348 #>>44331016 #
crazygringo ◴[] No.44331016[source]
It sounds like you've explicitly opted yourself into the lowest common denominator ads. It's understandable that mainstream companies want to maximize their advertising impact by only targeting the viewers where there is data to suggest the viewers will actually be interested in their products.

I'm honestly not really sure why you're complaining. If you don't want to be tracked or profiled, you're going to get the lowest quality ads. Why do you think higher-quality advertisers should be wasting money trying to reach you, when you are going out of your way to avoid any interest in them?

To be clear, I'm not criticizing what you're doing to avoid tracking, or your stance against it. But I'm questioning why you would then complain about the ads you receive.

replies(2): >>44331105 #>>44331265 #
1. ndriscoll ◴[] No.44331265[source]
Weird way to blame the victim and not the organization pushing scams on people. I vaguely recall that 20 years ago, Google served things like nonprofit or government PSAs when they didn't know what to serve (or thought you were botting), not financial scams.

Speaking of PSAs, the US federal government issued a PSA a couple years ago recommending use of an ad blocker to avoid becoming a victim of financial scams/fraud (purged now for some reason). Why they don't prosecute the ad companies for being the ones to select and deliver the mark is anyone's guess.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221221123349/https://www.ic3.g...