That so many smart and talented people choose to work on AdTech or systems that support AdTech is such a shame. That being said, I love these little anecdotes, they are super fun to read.
There are more positives in Adtech than negatives.
Adtech allows people and businesses to find products and services they want and need. Gives consumers choice in discovery and businesses reach and targeting customers in need.
At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people. That and the many business opportunities are why so many talented people work in Adtech.
"At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people."
Haha. Adtech is not there to "help people". Back in the day, prior to television and radio, ads were there to provide information about a product, but those days are long since past. Ads now-a-days appeal to emotional and irrational wants/desires, this is common knowledge. Ads attempt to generate needless sales by marketing to irrational and emotional desires.
Adtech on the other hand, is there to drive irrational and unneeded consumerism and consumption just as well, it just happens to have some additional evil sprinkled on top. For example, adtech violates human privacy, adtech marginalizes the open web, and turns it into a creepy surveillance nightmare.
To say that "At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people." is delusional and unintentionally hilarious. I am going to swing in the dark and say the GP must be an employee of facebook
Keep telling yourself that if it helps. ;)
While at some level ads probably do help consumers (indirectly), my impression so far is that at a fundamental level they are about companies competing for money, in a way which wastes everybody's time. Since your point of view is so vastly different, I'm curious in which ways you feel like they give consumers choice?
I share many concerns about tracking people, but let's acknowledge that adtech democratizes access to services that most people (worldwide) would not be able to afford. "Free" is the only price that works for the 36% of the world's population that is in poverty.
There are so many aspects of adtech that are ethically neutral. Just as advertising itself - there are even ads created by great creators that are works of modern art. It's only when it's abused adtech becomes evil.
It may be "many" but it does not mean that the defining nature of advertising is ethically neutral. I think I just quote Banksy/Tejaratchi:
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
One time I saw a fascinating article about how scientists were working to grow skin complete with natural looking hair from stem cells for burn victims and such. I thought the article was really neat and I was in a hurry so I emailed a the link to myself.
The next time I logged into my gmail to read it I happened to be at a machine without adblock and I saw that google was serving me ads for garbage treatments for male pattern baldness.
Fuck you Google and your shitty advertising. There's nothing wrong with going bald and I don't need you to try and make me feel insecure about my hairline when I'm trying to read about scientists helping burn victims.
The ad probably promoted a product that could regrow hair for bald people.
You just took that B̶a̶n̶k̶s̶y̶ Sean Tejaratchi quote and applied it to them. You chose to be offended by it. Sure baldness isn't wrong. But a lot of people like hair better and therefore a market exists for this type of product. Nothing wrong about that.
Repeated viewing of these kinds of ads is precisely what introduces the insecurity in people that makes them seek out the kinds of products being advertised. It's the same thing with skinny models and anorexia in girls.
Advertising is the cause of the 'problem' that they can conveniently solve. Besides some of these 'cures' for baldness have alarming side effects and there should be regulations around advertisement for these products. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-merck-propecia-suicide-ex...
Since very soon after Gmail launched, Google has been very open and public about mining user's emails to serve ads to them. This isn't some kind of dark pattern. There was a lot of fuss, to the point of politicians threatening to hold hearings about it.
And then people sign up for Gmail and complain about the ads.
I can understand complaining about cookies tracking you all over the Internet, and how hard it can be for the average Joe to avoid them. But Gmail and their ilk? It's trivial to use something else.
Thanks, I edited my post to include credits to Tejaratchi. Not sure how this should be done properly, as that specific quote is from Banksy, so I just left credits for both.
Please note that all these examples from the quote refer to a certain genre of ads targeted at the general public. Many teach ads I see are completely different. I often click on ads for microcontrollers for example, and I have't yet seen one I would find offensive in any way. They don't make me feel small and unworthy, on the opposite: the make me feel empwered. So it's really about the content of the ad, not advertising itself.
Advertising is crucial for everyone. When you have a product or service, you need to advertise it. Even if you choose not to buy ads, you need to find another way, organic or not, to make your project known. If you don't have a products/service yourself, you work for a company who has, and there are very few lucky enough not to need any advertising (because e.g. they secured long-term goverment contracts already etc.). We should focus on how to make advertising human again rather than destroying it completely.
Note that the quote originates from the 90's, way before ad tech as it is currently known. Advertising is a bit like finance. There exists an important, tiny core that is surrounded by a massive amount of activity whose societal benefit is doubtful at best.
That's not just ads or finance, that's all of capitalism. (If I'm good at programming I have to convince a farmer its in his interest to give me food, even if he doesn't need my software.) And communism has its own problems.
There is a difference between the medium (ads) and the targeting and distribution technology (adtech).
A great ad evokes some kind of feeling, can live with you for a long time, and even bring back memories that you cherish. Yes, I agree with you, it can be a form of art in that regard.
Adtech, however, is an intentionally invasive technology that exploits any means necessary and technologically feasible to more narrowly target potential consumers.
You can have ads without adtech. But you can't have (commercially successful) adtech without invasion of privacy.
> But you can't have (commercially successful) adtech without invasion of privacy.
I think we (as a society, not just tech people) specifically need to take care of this point. Removing tracking will make it less effective, so what. We've had advertising without tracking since 19th century.
OK. Let's separate the ad industry from ad technology for now. So as for the latter, have a look at the Revive ad server [0]. It allows you to deliver ads with intricate rules as to when they should be served, on which websites and so on. It allows you to be less dependent on Google/FB duopoly. You can host the ads either on your own websites or contact the owners of other popular websites and arrange an ad deal that doesn't involve user tracking. Yes, this is the opposite of what modern ad networks are doing.
In any case, advertising without user tracking is, in my opinion, one of the most ethically neutral forms of making your product/service known, in contrast to morally dubious methods such as advertising with user tracking, product placement, advertorials, advertising disguised as articles/videos etc.
Wow, I bet I'll miss out on so much important culture by not getting visual pollution all over the place unless its regulated out of existence.
No thanks, I'll continue to block it everywhere that I can, and even going further and inspecting elements to get rid of obnoxious paywalls as well! Wow, am I a hypocrite? Maybe develop real, sustainable revenue models that aren't dependent on clickbait and being a lobbyist for corporations in the form of selling eyeballs to the highest bidder. Just yuck. I'll be inclined to buy into $WHATEVER if you just let me use it for a bit, if I find it of my own means. I promise you I'm not going to buy a Swatch because of your fucking banner ad. Seriously, I promise. If I just bought a book I promise you I'm not going to buy it again if I see it appear in my side banner. 100%.
Or maybe I'll just grow less dependent on external services every time I have to consider another subscription... wow! We'll see!
