Hacker News Reader

Comment by colourgarden | Hacker News Reader

My immediate reaction to your comment was "How do you not know that?!" (I'm sorry.)

However, if people frequenting a tech forum are not aware of the privacy benefits that Firefox has been pushing for a long time now, we as "tech folk" have a responsibility to push out the message.

So you can find out more about Firefox tracking here - https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/09/03/todays-firefox-bloc...

And the Firefox Facebook Container may also be of interest - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/

Hopefully, you're now reading replies to your initial comment in Firefox!

View on HN

I knew Firefox was working when within about 6 weeks of switching over on my computer and phone (along with using DuckDuckGo and the Facebook container feature), I started getting ads telling me to practice law in Pennsylvania and to fix my weird sideways penis.

Both of which were thankfully completely off target. Apparently those two categories are the birdshot of advertising.

I use firefox focus on mobile to erase my history everytime I close the browser.

So I am in a similar position as you in terms of getting the ad companies to just throw random guesses at me.

But here is what gets me. There is this new push by YouTube that let's you clearly label your videos just for kids.

If I am on YouTube and I am playing a video that clearly is made for only kids, why does YouTube show advertising that is targeted for adults?

I use Focus for ephemeral browsing (about 70-80% of what I do), and Firefox Mobile proper on iOS for anything I need to hold history or state within. Hope more people recognize the value of Focus for that reason alone.

Perfect mobile duo for me.

Genuine question: why do you prefer ads for things that are irrelevant to your interests over ads that aren't?

From context, the OP likes it because it provides evidence that surveillance efforts against them are failing.

For me, a second reason to prefer them is that ads are noise. If the semantic content of that noise stays irrelevant, it is easier to ignore.

People can have a ton of other reasons, like avoiding temptation.

My turn - genuine question: did you honestly not know people feel this way?

As evidenced by your and the other comments, there's more than one answer to the question. The parent's explanation for knowing if their defensive measures were working were novel to me, so I was curious as to the motivation.

I know for myself, I always find it curious how people are against targeted advertising in certain areas, but completely willing to accept it in others, sometimes without realizing it. It's always amusing to me reading this on HN where targeted advertising takes place and no one bats and eye.

Are you a targeted ad by your own definition then? If everything is targeted advertising then nothing is, which seems to be your thesis.

> Are you a targeted ad by your own definition then?

How am I a targeted ad? I didn't say everyone on HN is a targeted ad. However, HN does show targeted ads.

> which seems to be your thesis.

Not even close. You should reread my comment for what it says, not what you want it to say so you can try to reply with a witless comment.

Sorry I thought you were saying something worth commenting on, but you were saying something else. Can you point me to some examples of targeted advertising here? I mostly see comments and submissions and if those can count as ads then that’s not a useful definition of ads to me. Maybe you mean something else though.

I am not totally against targeted advertising when I am being targeted based on my activity on that site, but I find it really creepy when ads are targeted based on things I've done outside of the internet, or conversations I've had. I don't like the idea that my activity unrelated to a specific site is being stored somewhere and sold to companies that could theoretically use it for whatever they want.

I don't mind supporting companies by not blocking ads on a page, but I do mind being "followed" by them around the internet and IRL.

I don't mind being targeted as well and if they push me cheaper and better promo all the better. It's despicable however if they start to skew the prices in their favor due to your interest in the item.

My perspective - I do not want to see ads relevant to my interests. If I want to buy something that I care about I'll do my own due diligence for what a good product is. I don't want to be lied to and distracted by junk marketing trying to convince me I should buy something.

Irrelevant ads are way easier to ignore. It's so off-target that your mind doesn't even loose a cycle trying to make sense of it. Then you get so used to not paying attention that the occasional relevant ad gets ignored too.

In short, this allows me to strengthen my focus. Even though this all happens semi-unconsciously, it makes me more immersed in the content I'm actively trying to pay attention to.

And then there are irrelevant video popups...

Simply because things I'm not interested in don't look interesting and therefore don't distract me.

Let's say I like cars and I don't care for travelling.

If both sides of the page are background image of a car, I will check what car it is because I like cars. If it's a huge picture of a beach I won't even notice because I don't care for beaches.

Not op but I'll answer:

Advertising works, on everyone, including on me.

No matter how hard I try to not be affected by advertising, I can't stop it from working.

Now, with that said, if I have the option to be exposed to an advertisement for a category of products that I am likely to purchase anywhay, or a category that I will never purchase: Isn't it obvious that my behaviour is more likely to be influenced by the relevant add than the irrelevant one?

Some people might think that the word "brainwashing" is too strong to be used for describing advertising, and maybe it is, but is it really that strange that I would prefer a tiny amount of "brainwashing" over a small amount?

I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but for me it's a sign that the advertising brokers/sellers don't know enough about me to advertise intelligently. Therefore they have less of my data (or less specific/identifying/informative data), which is a good thing for several reasons that have been discussed many times on this forum.

Worse advertising is a sacrifice I'm willing to make (as much as I do really like ads for things that are on sale when I happen to need them).

The ads can be made relevant relative to website's content, not my previous activity. If I'm reading a tutorial on how to fix something there may be ads for tools that are required for that. This is very relevant to me and at the same time does not need any information about my previous browsing history or other activities.

On the other hand, when I'm later visiting pornhub I'm unlikely to consider purchase of those tools even though they may appear relevant to my interests based on my previous browsing history. On the other hand, I am more likely to be interested in meeting hot moms from my area then - which is again solely context based.

It's not only about the relevancy of advertisements.

I'm sure they'd prefer or even like advertisements that are relevant from page content NOT invasive personal tracking or profiling.

IE: You go to a bathtub website and see an ad for rubber ducks and soap because those products make sense with bathtubs, not with the users browsing history.

Sadly, sacrificing relevancy is currently the only move to speak out about tracking, as a consumer.

I want sensible target advertising. As both a consumer and once shop owner I find the advert to be very powerful. The problem is I think current was of Digital Data Gathering and target advertising is going way off track.

I dont have a solution, as often it is with all these questions, but I hope there is a better way going forward.

Not GP, but: for me it’s never been about the ads. Poorly targeted ads are a sign that the advertising companies don’t have that much data on me, which is what I really care about.

Neither of those things you described are useful to me in any way. I would prefer the one that has respect for my privacy.

> if people frequenting a tech forum are not aware of the privacy benefits that Firefox has been pushing for a long time now

Maybe it's because this is a tech forum. I take care of cookies and third party (and even first party) resources myself - so I don't know and don't care what Firefox does by default. Defaults are good for the other 99% of the people (who usually don't visit tech forums).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com