Facebook Ads Are All-Knowing, Unblockable, and in Everyone’s Phone(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Facebook Ads Are All-Knowing, Unblockable, and in Everyone’s Phone
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/facebook-ads-are-all-knowing-unblockable-and-in-everyone-s-phone
13 comments
All that talent at Facebook, and they use it to come up with creepier and more invasive ways of ad targeting. I could not help laughing at the quote about it being for "the greater good". Hot Fuzz flashbacks ahoy.
The same can be said about Google, no?
Absolutely, like at any company that has to differentiate between a "customer" and a "user" for the core moneymaking part of the business.
We also make self-driving cars, to keep our conscious clean.
As if the self-driving cars won't be used for data-mining and analytics as well.
I fully expect that every time I get into one it will be analyzing my eye and iris movement to derive my subconscious emotional responses to the businesses the car drives past or some similar creepy shit.
I fully expect that every time I get into one it will be analyzing my eye and iris movement to derive my subconscious emotional responses to the businesses the car drives past or some similar creepy shit.
It's nice to know that some Google employees are resistant to cognitive dissonance.
I remember reading somewhere that there is a (underground?) group within Google dissatisfied with the dominance of advertising at the company, both in business and product decisions.
I remember reading somewhere that there is a (underground?) group within Google dissatisfied with the dominance of advertising at the company, both in business and product decisions.
Advertising is a brilliant business to be in for Google, and the main cash cow. Nothing wrong with success. The ads are paying my salary indirectly.
(If all ads were like Google ads, I wouldn't have bothered installing an ad-blocker in the first place.)
> I remember reading somewhere that there is a (underground?) group within Google dissatisfied with the dominance of advertising at the company, both in business and product decisions.
We have very vocal employees. You can find people complaining about everything. (Including the lack of M&Ms in some micro kitchens.) I am sure there are also people dissatisfied with ads.
If you want to hear me complain, ask me about the choice of programming languages we are using. Or about open plan offices.
Still the best run company I've worked for.
(If all ads were like Google ads, I wouldn't have bothered installing an ad-blocker in the first place.)
> I remember reading somewhere that there is a (underground?) group within Google dissatisfied with the dominance of advertising at the company, both in business and product decisions.
We have very vocal employees. You can find people complaining about everything. (Including the lack of M&Ms in some micro kitchens.) I am sure there are also people dissatisfied with ads.
If you want to hear me complain, ask me about the choice of programming languages we are using. Or about open plan offices.
Still the best run company I've worked for.
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads."
http://www.fastcompany.com/3008436/takeaway/why-data-god-jef...
http://www.fastcompany.com/3008436/takeaway/why-data-god-jef...
I would say that this is a person who is clearly misinformed about who has the best minds.
You maybe confusing minds with hearts. I would agree those with the best hearts would feel the strongest repulsion for having anything to do with ads.
As to minds, he may be exaggerating, but not as much as you think. Try a less literal read:
For example, Google makes all its revenue from ads. It invests in Android as a way to maintain the reach of its ads in the face of mass migration from desktops to mobile devices. So by that measure, it's not just Google's adtech engineers (which I'd bet is what some if not most of their smartest mathematicians work on. I know, as regrettably I was once in the business), but also Google's Android engineer that are "thinking about how to make people click ads." Just today: Google Targets Intent With Email, YouTube And Search Matching And Universal App Campaigns.[1]
For another example read Dalton Caldwell's story about working for SourceForge, and how it compares to GitHub[2]:
> The problem was, SourceForge was an ad-ridden, user-hostile piece of crap. Getting anything done required several extraneous pageviews & clicks. The site was designed to squeeze every last advertising penny out of you. I can’t blame management for trying to generate more revenue…. two months into my job there, 25% of the company was laid off.
> There was much public hand-wringing over the crappiness of the SourceForge user experience. There were two camps in these debates: those that wanted to build an open source, decentralized version of SourceForge (which someone did), and those that pointed out it was a free service, and how dare anyone complain about the user & developer-hostile aspects of the experience. Tolerating the bad behavior of SourceForge “is a necessary evil”, the apologists would say, “otherwise the service we all depend on might go away.” Does any of this sound familiar?
Compared to GitHub:
> Github has become a much-loved brand and service, and many would agree that it is a key piece of infrastructure in the technical renaissance we are currently experiencing. Github is apparently profitable, and it sounds like the people that work there spend their time trying to make the best service possible, as opposed to spending their time trying to extract additional pennies out of their users.
Full circle: Caldwell plugs the same Jeffrey Hammerbacher quote as jordigh. I also use that quote, as well as this one:[3]
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
-
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/27/google-targets-intent-with-...
[2] http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10047706
As to minds, he may be exaggerating, but not as much as you think. Try a less literal read:
For example, Google makes all its revenue from ads. It invests in Android as a way to maintain the reach of its ads in the face of mass migration from desktops to mobile devices. So by that measure, it's not just Google's adtech engineers (which I'd bet is what some if not most of their smartest mathematicians work on. I know, as regrettably I was once in the business), but also Google's Android engineer that are "thinking about how to make people click ads." Just today: Google Targets Intent With Email, YouTube And Search Matching And Universal App Campaigns.[1]
For another example read Dalton Caldwell's story about working for SourceForge, and how it compares to GitHub[2]:
> The problem was, SourceForge was an ad-ridden, user-hostile piece of crap. Getting anything done required several extraneous pageviews & clicks. The site was designed to squeeze every last advertising penny out of you. I can’t blame management for trying to generate more revenue…. two months into my job there, 25% of the company was laid off.
> There was much public hand-wringing over the crappiness of the SourceForge user experience. There were two camps in these debates: those that wanted to build an open source, decentralized version of SourceForge (which someone did), and those that pointed out it was a free service, and how dare anyone complain about the user & developer-hostile aspects of the experience. Tolerating the bad behavior of SourceForge “is a necessary evil”, the apologists would say, “otherwise the service we all depend on might go away.” Does any of this sound familiar?
Compared to GitHub:
> Github has become a much-loved brand and service, and many would agree that it is a key piece of infrastructure in the technical renaissance we are currently experiencing. Github is apparently profitable, and it sounds like the people that work there spend their time trying to make the best service possible, as opposed to spending their time trying to extract additional pennies out of their users.
Full circle: Caldwell plugs the same Jeffrey Hammerbacher quote as jordigh. I also use that quote, as well as this one:[3]
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
-
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/27/google-targets-intent-with-...
[2] http://daltoncaldwell.com/an-audacious-proposal
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10047706
If you need to preface anything with "It may sound creepy but.." then it is creepy and you probably shouldn’t be doing it.
What people don't seem to have considered is whether or not unblockable ads in FB's app would be enough to make users who install ad blocking abandon FB. There's a tacit assumption that FB is more important to users than blocking ads, but until that's been tested I think we ought to remain skeptical whether such an assumption is correct.
I think it's reasonable to think that someone who pays money not to see ads would be willing to leave FB if their app fails to respect that wish, and FB might well allow blocking to avoid any sort of cascading network effect a core group of users leaving might have.
I think it's reasonable to think that someone who pays money not to see ads would be willing to leave FB if their app fails to respect that wish, and FB might well allow blocking to avoid any sort of cascading network effect a core group of users leaving might have.
.. or at least uninstall the app and switch to the website.
In any case, the same dynamic applies as on the web: people aren't very motivated by privacy when installing ad-blockers, but visual intrusiveness, annoyingness, offence and exploitativeness will push people over the edge into looking for a solution.
In any case, the same dynamic applies as on the web: people aren't very motivated by privacy when installing ad-blockers, but visual intrusiveness, annoyingness, offence and exploitativeness will push people over the edge into looking for a solution.
Agreed, I switched to using the browser and now that's to in-cognito mode also On doing so, a few friends followed . Whilst privacy intrusion does irritate me, completely correct that visual instrusiveness as you put it, especially adds appearing very close to where I'm trying to click and then I end up clicking on them. I did use adblocker for a while but it wasn't 100% affective hence the switch over
answer is simple to me. I deleted facebook a while ago when I saw the targeted ads targeting a bit too well and Im pretty sure many people will remove FB the more FB is becoming relevant as a business
I agree. Every time I go on I feel like I'm signing another waiver for Facebook's social experiments. I hardly go on anymore, except to message friends to call by phone or Skype instead.
Facebook ads are far better citizens than web ads. If all web ads were like FB ads, I don't think there would be such an uproar about ad blocking.
The other big difference is that we give a lot of targeting information to FB voluntarily that otherwise needs to be inferred by web ad networks through the use of tracking. I've told Facebook that I'm a 30 year old male with X, Y, & Z interests, so they don't need a super-cookie tracking me across the web to infer that information based on my browsing history (FB does track users across the web AFAIK, but I think they could do just fine without having to do so).
The other big difference is that we give a lot of targeting information to FB voluntarily that otherwise needs to be inferred by web ad networks through the use of tracking. I've told Facebook that I'm a 30 year old male with X, Y, & Z interests, so they don't need a super-cookie tracking me across the web to infer that information based on my browsing history (FB does track users across the web AFAIK, but I think they could do just fine without having to do so).
That FB can do just fine without tracking users outside of FB is true but debatable given how widely adopted is their WCA product, and the fact that they are looking into using their like buttons to track people's activity online to be used for their advertising machine learning.
At the same time the data that you voluntarily give to Facebook, while certainly useful for look-a-like campaigns and such, is not exactly that predictive when talking about DR campaigns for which you need to establish an imminent intent of buying something. Using their various tracking pixels, that ad networks cookie match with, they start to collect also that dataset. At the moment they also have 3 different ways to cookie match with partners, all 3 basically required, this also contributes to added latency when loading pages, would be better to have 1.
The ad tech market is fairly complex and unfortunately often people make assumptions about datasets, their predictive power or reasons behind why the situation is the way it is without necessarily having done the research about it.
At the same time the data that you voluntarily give to Facebook, while certainly useful for look-a-like campaigns and such, is not exactly that predictive when talking about DR campaigns for which you need to establish an imminent intent of buying something. Using their various tracking pixels, that ad networks cookie match with, they start to collect also that dataset. At the moment they also have 3 different ways to cookie match with partners, all 3 basically required, this also contributes to added latency when loading pages, would be better to have 1.
The ad tech market is fairly complex and unfortunately often people make assumptions about datasets, their predictive power or reasons behind why the situation is the way it is without necessarily having done the research about it.
Should restaurants respect the wishes of people who want to eat without paying? If they kick them out they might leave a bad Yelp review.
You don't get unilateral power to trade free services for arbitrary obligations. If you have a restaurant where you've decided to list all your menu items at zero cost, that doesn't automatically grant you the power to kick people out because they refuse to eat off the floor.
Your customers must first explicitly agree to such a thing before you should be able to enforce it. You don't get to make all the decisions for both parties. That's obviously exploitative.
Your customers must first explicitly agree to such a thing before you should be able to enforce it. You don't get to make all the decisions for both parties. That's obviously exploitative.
> If you have a restaurant where you've decided to list all your menu items at zero cost, that doesn't automatically grant you the power to kick people out because they refuse to eat off the floor.
Why not? Kicking someone out of your restaurant is exactly what you should do if you can't come to an agreement.
Why not? Kicking someone out of your restaurant is exactly what you should do if you can't come to an agreement.
There is no agreement. That's my point. People serving websites with advertising are doing so under a bargain that users have never actually agreed to: that they are exchanging free content for advertising views. But the website makes an agreement with advertisers, not with the public.
So in our restaurant analogy, it would be like if you had an agreement with your food supplier that they will provide you with cheap food if you make customers eat it off the floor, and now you're complaining that customers are not fulfilling their end of this deal. The customers don't have a deal with you. You just offer them free food, and they are taking it and trying not to eat off the floor. It's not their fault you offer free food. Don't do that.
So in our restaurant analogy, it would be like if you had an agreement with your food supplier that they will provide you with cheap food if you make customers eat it off the floor, and now you're complaining that customers are not fulfilling their end of this deal. The customers don't have a deal with you. You just offer them free food, and they are taking it and trying not to eat off the floor. It's not their fault you offer free food. Don't do that.
The agreement with the food supplier is irrelevant.
If a customer walks into your free-food restaurant and finds the conditions unsuitable to them, they should leave. If they refuse, you should kick them out.
If a customer walks into your free-food restaurant and finds the conditions unsuitable to them, they should leave. If they refuse, you should kick them out.
[deleted]
Absolutely. Even if particular restaurant provides food for free it is still a subject for regulations e.g. concerning health and fire safety.
No idea about how things are on iOS, but on Android there is Xposed with MinMinGuard that does the job of removing in-app ads really well. Not absolutely perfect (some apps may crash in rare cases, but they're really rare), but at least on par with in-browser ad blocking. Or, given than there aren't too many ad libraries (way less than web-based ad networks), maybe even better.
There's also AdAway for more "traditional" system-wide ad blocking via hosts file or applications like "Tinfoil Hat" which opens the mobile Facebook site in a sandboxed wrapper so you are essentially able to view the site without using their dedicated app or needing to open an incognito tab in Chrome or Firefox before visiting the mobile site.
Ads and tracking aside, it's worth it even if just for the lowered system resource usage (my battery life improved by a decent margin even though I still check out Facebook every 1-3 days on my phone).
Ads and tracking aside, it's worth it even if just for the lowered system resource usage (my battery life improved by a decent margin even though I still check out Facebook every 1-3 days on my phone).
What a spammy title. The ads are only "in your phone" if you use a Facebook app.
Breaking news! Ad-powered app shows ads in its app!
Does anyone know whether Facebook also tracks you into and out of WhatsApp, by the way?
Breaking news! Ad-powered app shows ads in its app!
Does anyone know whether Facebook also tracks you into and out of WhatsApp, by the way?
> Does anyone know whether Facebook also tracks you into and out of WhatsApp, by the way?
It most certainly does. I have contacts in WhatsApp that I have no other contact with (nor do they with me, dont know my name etc.), yet after the first time I chat with them on WhatsApp, they are in my recommended friends on facebook. Pretty infuriating.
It most certainly does. I have contacts in WhatsApp that I have no other contact with (nor do they with me, dont know my name etc.), yet after the first time I chat with them on WhatsApp, they are in my recommended friends on facebook. Pretty infuriating.
Does both WhatsApp and Facebook use (and were actually allowed to use) phone's built-in contact/address book subsystem?
Honest question, I don't use either app, so no idea. Just thought this could be a possible that WA had created a contact in the system-wide address book and FB saw it.
Honest question, I don't use either app, so no idea. Just thought this could be a possible that WA had created a contact in the system-wide address book and FB saw it.
I have other people in my phone contacts that Ive never communicated with on facebook and I have never been suggested to be friends with them. So Im doubtful.
$19B well spent... ha
[deleted]
I have as few phone apps as possible. Undesired ads and asking for waaaaaay too much access to my phones data and features, no thanks I'll just use my browser and view your page. I'm sure many in the HN crowd practice similar behaviors however for the majority of people I'd assume this article holds more weight.
Just browse FB in safari with an ad blocker ?
Isn't it an exaggeration to say the ads are unblockable even on apps on phones? The apps generally do have more control on what's shown and what's not. To start, couldn't the ads be filtered and masked from one's router or on a (home) proxy server that one uses? The apps could be written such that they detect if an ad is being replaced with empty content, but I don't think the apps are there yet.
On this topic, what are the latest alternatives available for routers/proxy servers that are as good as uBlock Origin (or ABE) on the desktop (sharing the same popular block lists)?
On this topic, what are the latest alternatives available for routers/proxy servers that are as good as uBlock Origin (or ABE) on the desktop (sharing the same popular block lists)?
Wrong.
No FB app, adaway + ublock + pale moon.
No FB app, adaway + ublock + pale moon.
Why adaway + ublock? Are those not redundant if you don't have the FB app?
No always, unfortunately. Adaway is ip based while ublock is regex based, achieving different end results.
I use Fb but the Fb app is a disgrace, and not only because of privacy reasons
It usually shows me what's happening last week instead of the latest posts
It usually shows me what's happening last week instead of the latest posts
the Fb app is a disgrace, and not only because of privacy reasons
Having it installed also kills your battery life. Probably a knock-on effect from the privacy invasion (but at least I have a reason not to use facebook that doesn't weird out normies).
Having it installed also kills your battery life. Probably a knock-on effect from the privacy invasion (but at least I have a reason not to use facebook that doesn't weird out normies).
Um, not if you don't use Facebook?
FB continues to promote the self-serving fallacy that users really, really want ads.
According to FB, users just desparately want those ads to be highly targeted and relevant. And, that's awesome, because it just happens to correspond exactly with what advertisers want.
Most amazing is that advertisers continue to believe it. Testament to the power of desparation and wishful thinking.
According to FB, users just desparately want those ads to be highly targeted and relevant. And, that's awesome, because it just happens to correspond exactly with what advertisers want.
Most amazing is that advertisers continue to believe it. Testament to the power of desparation and wishful thinking.
No one really wants ads, but people do want facebook for free.
In other words, they only want facebook because it's free?
If Facebook charged money to the end user it would be immediately abandoned. It's weird that such a large service has such a low value to users. Most other huge free services could charge end users and get away with it but FBs value is tied to the fact that it's free and accessible by anyone.
Of course. But, that's not exactly the pitch they sell to their advertisers is it?
Well Facebook brings in about $50/year per user in revenue. If the alternative is to pay $50/year to keep the ads and tracking off for your account will that many people really pay that? They would have to charge more than that as well because once they let people opt out the rest of the data loses value for not being complete.
>If the alternative is to pay $50/year to keep the ads and tracking off for your account will that many people really pay that?
But, of course, that doesn't mean they want ads. The reality is that they want neither.
Your comment points to exactly the fallacy I referenced: this idea they peddle to advertisers that people want relevant ads. No, they will stomach ads if they must, because it's the lesser of evils.
But, of course, that doesn't mean they want ads. The reality is that they want neither.
Your comment points to exactly the fallacy I referenced: this idea they peddle to advertisers that people want relevant ads. No, they will stomach ads if they must, because it's the lesser of evils.
Since the group of users that would consider paying a yearly fee is also the most valuable group to advertisers, the devaluation might end up being very drastical.
So then they have to have tiered pricing so that the occasional user pays very little (or nothing) and the people who want to have Farmville and pokes and all of the other nonsense that lets you live your life on FB will pay something more substantial.
actually I want ads that are really relevant. I sometimes get them in Gmail, most of the time not though. Don't like or use Facebook.
I remember I had a talk with a coworker once and we talked about if the ad was good enough to give you what you really wanted to buy when you searched and he thought it should be the first result, which I don't agree with because of course what is most helpful to me at some point might not be what I want to buy in relation to the search but something else. But definitely the thing I want to buy should be presented to me when I want to buy it so that I can buy it with the least amount of fuss.
But unfortunately that is not what I get.
I remember I had a talk with a coworker once and we talked about if the ad was good enough to give you what you really wanted to buy when you searched and he thought it should be the first result, which I don't agree with because of course what is most helpful to me at some point might not be what I want to buy in relation to the search but something else. But definitely the thing I want to buy should be presented to me when I want to buy it so that I can buy it with the least amount of fuss.
But unfortunately that is not what I get.
>actually I want ads that are really relevant. I sometimes get them in Gmail, most of the time not though
I would suggest that you simply appreciate the occasional ad that happens to be relevant, especially given that most aren't (as you noted). But that is a far cry from really wanting to be inundated with or demanding ads, relevant or not.
I would suggest that you simply appreciate the occasional ad that happens to be relevant, especially given that most aren't (as you noted). But that is a far cry from really wanting to be inundated with or demanding ads, relevant or not.
I suppose that it is true that I do not want to be inundated with relevant ads, but I wonder if you can actually be inundated with relevance. Relevance acts as a filter after all.
But do I want relevant ads, yes, although I would also like this to be interspersed with other relevant things. If an engine could determine that the most relevant thing for me at the moment is something educational on a subject then it should give me this, if an ad it should give me an ad.
As an example I recently bought a rabbit for my daughter, there's a bunch of relevant information on rabbits I need to know about, as well as things it would be useful for me to buy. In order for me to determine what I need to buy I need to do research to determine what is the best solution for my needs at the moment. Really relevant ads would give me a very close match to what I need, and explain to me why I needed it. Trusting the relevant ad vendor I would not have to spend time on research and could go directly to purchase. This is of the course the dream, a dream unavailable with today's technology but inching closer. I would like it if it were here. Of course the problem is this kind of relevance would carry with it side effects that I might not like so much.
As an example I recently bought a rabbit for my daughter, there's a bunch of relevant information on rabbits I need to know about, as well as things it would be useful for me to buy. In order for me to determine what I need to buy I need to do research to determine what is the best solution for my needs at the moment. Really relevant ads would give me a very close match to what I need, and explain to me why I needed it. Trusting the relevant ad vendor I would not have to spend time on research and could go directly to purchase. This is of the course the dream, a dream unavailable with today's technology but inching closer. I would like it if it were here. Of course the problem is this kind of relevance would carry with it side effects that I might not like so much.
Oh, I think it's possible to be inundated with virtually anything, including relevance. Yes, I may find a product relevant, but there is some threshhold past which I'd be sick of having it pitched to me.
Retargeting is a perfect example of how a relevance beatdown can occur. Yes, I put those shoes in my cart because I was genuinely interested in them. But, I don't need to see them popping up on every site I visit thereafter for a week. Neither do I need to keep seeing the Softlayer Cloud ads, etc. It's a turnoff to be hounded like this, and even distasteful at a certain point.
To your point, though, perhaps part of the problem is the current ad formats.
Retargeting is a perfect example of how a relevance beatdown can occur. Yes, I put those shoes in my cart because I was genuinely interested in them. But, I don't need to see them popping up on every site I visit thereafter for a week. Neither do I need to keep seeing the Softlayer Cloud ads, etc. It's a turnoff to be hounded like this, and even distasteful at a certain point.
To your point, though, perhaps part of the problem is the current ad formats.
They're not in my phone, I don't use facebook on it.
Not for people that refuse to use it.