These encouragements make me think that Facebook seems to believe that their ads are useful, which is a bit insane from a user perspective.
I also kind of despise Facebook, hence no account, so I don’t mind if this permission screen fails. :)
To be honest, I don't see hope for ethical small business without user tracking. That's why Facebook is pushing that angle, even it is very small percentage on the overall. Big players will be almost not effected anyway.
Don't get me wrong, I probably hate the average ad more than most people (any Liberty Mutual ad just makes me angry), but to say that ads are not useful from a user perspective is a bit too absolute a position; for me, the good ones definitely are useful.
If you do, I dispute the claim you hate the average ad more than most people, as would millions of Adblock users.
It seems like there are three big possibilities:
1. I see ads, and some of them cater directly to me. In this case, I see a lot of irrelevant/patronizing ads, but also some ads that make me see a product or company I like. 2. I see ads, and none cater directly to me. I see a lot of irrelevant/patronizing ads, and fewer ads that show me a product or company I like (and especially fewer that can only afford to market to people that are likely to buy their product, e.g. a sale at a local toy train repair shop or something). 3. I see no ads at all. This is what I default to on the internet, except for some whitelisted sites. There is no stress from seeing bad ads. There is also no possibility of serendipitously finding a new product/company I want to try.
A lot of people are strongly in camp #3. That's fine, I'm in camp #3 for most of the internet. However, given that I have found value out of some ads, it's hard to put "stress from bad ads" against "joy from products I found through ads" on a single scale. As such, I can empathize with camp #1. Likewise, I understand that camps #1 and #2 can be important monetization mechanisms for websites that I support, and I'm fine taking that hit in exchange for those websites still existing (as I'm sure most others are -- if ad-blockers disappeared overnight, my gut tells me that the average person wouldn't change many of their browsing habits by a lot.)
To me it seems like the lesser of two evils that if a company needs to show me ads (in a privacy-respecting way), then I'd like more of those ads to be relevant. All that said, I'm happy to be wrong here, and maybe I underestimate how much other people hate bad ads too (and also, all the above options assume respect for privacy in ad-targeting, something that I don't have nearly enough insight to even make educated guesses on.)
I've often wondered if there is a population of users who simply hate ads to the extent that any impression will be net negative value to the advertiser, and what mechanisms could be used to stop showing them ads. There used to be services which let you purchase all of your own ads, but I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use.
This segment of the population absolutely exists and I would guess that it is growing. Many people in my circle block ads on every device possible. Seeing any ad is an immediate negative impression for my group of friends.
This is entirely anecdotal, but I've seen this same sentiment in many other circles and am hearing it more and more often.
Yes, I would characterize myself as such. The best products gain their exposure through word of mouth, and don't need paid advertising. Incessantly raping my eyeballs with your brand would just make me hate it even more. Especially so if it's happening on my own electronic devices against my will.
But then there are people who legitimately want to be advertised to — I know some personally.
> I think people want something more transparent which outright removes them from the services they use.
These are called ad blockers. I use them in some form on every device I own.
This says nothing about whether ads are useful or beneficial to people. Buying a product does not mean the product was not a net loss for the customer, with the classic example being cigarettes.