Are you yourself a thief for using things like YouTube videos for free?
Back in the day, when the internet was wild and free, advertisment online was a means of allowing hosts and websites to keep the lights on becore e-commerce had its sea legs, and that was the social agreement. Your site hosts ads, I get access to the site, captialism still happened, but it was simple
What do you think it is now…?
I mean, obviously, corporate greed turns all of this up to 11, because if it doesn’t the shareholders are sad and the CEO gets sacked, but ultimately, it’s the exact same social agreement - you get to watch or read content without paying for it, and in exchange, you get to watch ads.
NOTE: I don’t do cable TV, so don’t know anything about that. I’m talking specifically about the Internet.
To the previous poster’s point, internet ads have evolved away from ‘paying the bills’ and more towards ‘harvesting and selling your data’. It’s made to be as invasive as possible now because they want your data, whereas before it was much easier to ignore or filter out. And it’s everywhere, from websites to mobile apps.
To your example, the amount of money youtube(well, google) has spent on trying to beat adblockers could make the service free for everyone and keep the lights on…but it makes more money to sell your data instead, so they try to shove more ads in. That’s also not counting the amount of paid research that goes into ‘what advertising is effective’, or ‘how many ads is too many’, stuff like that. Not nearly as much thought was put into them in the early days.
It’s made to be as invasive as possible now because they want your data, whereas before it was much easier to ignore or filter out
Is it, though? You don’t remember the dozens of pop-up ads, or ads that would literally open new browser windows for you? All of that is gone, except on some shifty pirate/porn websites, isn’t it?
has spent on trying to beat adblockers could make the service free for everyone and keep the lights on
Yeah, I’m gonna need a source on that one, chief.
but it makes more money to sell your data instead, so they try to shove more ads in.
They’re not getting your data via ads. They’re serving ads “tailored” for you after they’ve already harvested the data via cookies, browsing history in Chrome, your Gmail, your viewing habits on YT, your Google Search history, etc., etc.
Those ads are STILL there, especially on social media. The amount of times I’ve had a customer call into support for getting malicious advertisement off Facebook is goddamn staggering. They’re made to purposely confuse and confound, especially the older, less savvy folks. Stop simping for data harvessting and invasive advertising by the way. It makes you look bad.
Information is harvested from ads displayed as well, whether they’re clicked or not, how long it takes for a person to skip them on a youtube video or how much of it is watched. All useful user data to try and personalize more ads for you. Are YOU okay? One shouldn’t be trying to defend a horrible practice that tries to psychologically manipulate people.
The information harvested from ads is “did they have them displayed? For how long? Did they click”, and that’s it. It’s benign. The malicious stuff that we don’t want harvested is alllll the other shit that leads Google Ads to display ads for sneakers right after you looked at some sneakers on Amazon.
I still don’t know where you’re getting the notion that I’m defending anything here from. It’s weird. Stop being weird.
Because you ARE defending by arguing against the points people make. Good lord… So you moved the goal post again because if I remember from what I read you were saying no data harvesting comes from the ads themselves. And that “benign” data harvesting is the same harvesting that goes into showing you ads about something you just talked about or looked at. It’s all interconnected.
Because you ARE defending by arguing against the points people make
If they’re shit points, yeah, I’m arguing against them. Doesn’t mean I’m defending ads in their current form. And, if you read my original comment without getting angry at some tribalist bullshit, you’d see that I already mentioned what’s wrong with ads there.
you were saying no data harvesting comes from the ads themselves
That’s not user data. I thought we were concerned about user data, not telemetry in its entirety. If it’s the former - my point stands. If it’s the latter - please stop being silly and learn what telemetry is.
And that “benign” data harvesting is the same harvesting that goes into showing you ads about something you just talked about or looked at
Are you yourself a thief for using things like YouTube videos for free?
What do you think it is now…?
I mean, obviously, corporate greed turns all of this up to 11, because if it doesn’t the shareholders are sad and the CEO gets sacked, but ultimately, it’s the exact same social agreement - you get to watch or read content without paying for it, and in exchange, you get to watch ads.
NOTE: I don’t do cable TV, so don’t know anything about that. I’m talking specifically about the Internet.
To the previous poster’s point, internet ads have evolved away from ‘paying the bills’ and more towards ‘harvesting and selling your data’. It’s made to be as invasive as possible now because they want your data, whereas before it was much easier to ignore or filter out. And it’s everywhere, from websites to mobile apps.
To your example, the amount of money youtube(well, google) has spent on trying to beat adblockers could make the service free for everyone and keep the lights on…but it makes more money to sell your data instead, so they try to shove more ads in. That’s also not counting the amount of paid research that goes into ‘what advertising is effective’, or ‘how many ads is too many’, stuff like that. Not nearly as much thought was put into them in the early days.
Is it, though? You don’t remember the dozens of pop-up ads, or ads that would literally open new browser windows for you? All of that is gone, except on some shifty pirate/porn websites, isn’t it?
Yeah, I’m gonna need a source on that one, chief.
They’re not getting your data via ads. They’re serving ads “tailored” for you after they’ve already harvested the data via cookies, browsing history in Chrome, your Gmail, your viewing habits on YT, your Google Search history, etc., etc.
Those ads are STILL there, especially on social media. The amount of times I’ve had a customer call into support for getting malicious advertisement off Facebook is goddamn staggering. They’re made to purposely confuse and confound, especially the older, less savvy folks. Stop simping for data harvessting and invasive advertising by the way. It makes you look bad.
Again: displaying ads happens AFTER the data has been harvested. How is stating this simple fact “simping for data harvesting”? Buddy, are you OK?
Information is harvested from ads displayed as well, whether they’re clicked or not, how long it takes for a person to skip them on a youtube video or how much of it is watched. All useful user data to try and personalize more ads for you. Are YOU okay? One shouldn’t be trying to defend a horrible practice that tries to psychologically manipulate people.
The information harvested from ads is “did they have them displayed? For how long? Did they click”, and that’s it. It’s benign. The malicious stuff that we don’t want harvested is alllll the other shit that leads Google Ads to display ads for sneakers right after you looked at some sneakers on Amazon.
I still don’t know where you’re getting the notion that I’m defending anything here from. It’s weird. Stop being weird.
Because you ARE defending by arguing against the points people make. Good lord… So you moved the goal post again because if I remember from what I read you were saying no data harvesting comes from the ads themselves. And that “benign” data harvesting is the same harvesting that goes into showing you ads about something you just talked about or looked at. It’s all interconnected.
If they’re shit points, yeah, I’m arguing against them. Doesn’t mean I’m defending ads in their current form. And, if you read my original comment without getting angry at some tribalist bullshit, you’d see that I already mentioned what’s wrong with ads there.
That’s not user data. I thought we were concerned about user data, not telemetry in its entirety. If it’s the former - my point stands. If it’s the latter - please stop being silly and learn what telemetry is.
It’s not.
It’s not.