Hacker News Reader

Comment by roywiggins | Hacker News Reader

The spam filter is for my benefit, but scanning for ad keywords is designed to benefit someone else, not me.

To play Devil's advocate, the ads benefit you because they make Gmail free.

What about people not using gmail but sending email to a gmail users? Those don't gain anything here.

I actually host my own email but every time I send a message to somebody using one of these webmails it gets indexed and monetized.

But I would argue that it's a technical problem first and foremost, email security is mostly a joke. If I need to send sensitive things through emails I can always use PGP to actually protect it, instead of relying on the goodwill of the email provider not to peek into the message. If people really valued their privacy they'd be doing something similar.

I would rather pay and do not share anything with Google (or for that matter all of Google's partners who can purchase our data)

There are many options to pay for email, fastmail just for one. Do you use one of them?

And how exactly will I escape Google's data collection when Fastmail uses GA for analytics?

....script type="text/javascript" src="/static/scripts/ga.js....

Run a broad-spectrum blocker like uBlock Origin? Access your fastmail from an interface other than their web interface?

Ok so there is more involved than just use Fastmail, as it was suggested. Thanks for confirming.

> many options to pay for email, fastmail just for one

That’s the marketing site; the actual app where you read your email definitely doesn’t have Google Analytics.

Google isn't just an e-mail service, really.

But… you don’t really have to use Gmail to use most of Google’s other products, just as you don’t really have to use (actively) Google+ to use other Google products either.

Unfortunately no. You are going to be tracked whereever you go and it has GA. The reason why Google can stop reading your emails is because they have a global network now that can track you better.

But imagine you use an Android phone, for instance. There's a whole bunch of integrated stuff that works well together that wouldn't if you had a Google account and then kept your e-mail somewhere else. It's not really a 1:1 comparison.

You can, it's called Google Apps for Business.

Not to be pedantic, but it's called "G Suite" nowadays.

> all of Google's partners who can purchase our data

I'm pretty sure that's the empty set.

Ads benefit both you and the other group that they connect you. You finding out about, say, a product you are interested benefits you.

http://www.talkingnewmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ou...

http://moneyinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/nypostoutbrai...

Benefitting. You.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2044DNCEAAHmu-.png

The next time you want to buy, say, 9 celebs in open relationships.

http://www.cpawealthacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/R...

This is what ads are. This is what we adblock. This is clickbait, lies, manipulation, visually distracting, space wasting, untrustworthy, barrel scraping garbage.

"Ads inform you about products" in the same way slime mould informs you that your house is too damp. The best individual course of action is not to buy what the mould is selling.

In a perfect world, yes. In the real world ads are about manipulating through every psychological trick in the book to buy shit you don't need. To manipulate you into thinking brand A is better than brand B (both of which you were already aware of). Etc.

In theory, yes

In actuality: they are a waste of my time and mental space

That's true in the sense that having no ads at all would be better; but if you're going to be seeing ads either way, why wouldn't you want them to be ads for things relevant to your interests?

Why would I be seeing ads either way? I generally don't see them at all.

Whether you block ads or not is kinda beside the point. It's a little unreasonable to expect Google or anyone else to stop personalizing the ads they're trying to serve you just based on the fact that you're blocking them.

I'll agree that most ads are junk and not relevant to a users life, but that doesn't mean all ads are.

Having said that, I've never clicked on an ad in Gmail since 2004 or so.

That's just a rare side-effect, not the reason why the scanning happens, or why the ads are shown.

The ads are shown exactly for that reason. If the only ads shown were for products or services or information which the consumer was not interested in, then no one would pay for advertisements in the first place.

Apparently spreading malware is pretty high value, actually.

Out of curiosity do you work in advertising tech or marketing?

They are about the only people I've ever seen express this view seriously.

Nope - I am a developer working on a consumer oriented application with no advertisements.

I'm not trying to say that all ads give you that benefit - most are just a waste of screen space, compute and bandwidth.

Even if I agreed that some ads have benefit, the cost-benefit analysis (with costs including screen space, compute, bandwidth and the malware threat) still looks grim enough to justify adblocking IMO.

What if you're buddhist?

"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes while being informed about ten local places to purchase God with next-day delivery."

There are many flavors of Buddhism, which one matters here for the point you are making?

EDIT - I am not sure why I am being downvote, I legitimately don't get his point and figured I would for more info rather than just calling him out as a troll or something. Is there something obvious I should know?

Disclaimer: I know nothing of Buddhism, I haven't even read the Wikipedia page

I believe some Buddhism teaches something along the lines of: personal possessions are bad, and freedom is found in not owning anything.

I think OP is saying: advertising goes directly against that line of thinking. It is actually tempting a Buddhist to buy more stuff, thus going against their religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com