Hacker News Reader

Comment by rwolf | Hacker News Reader

It's not clear to me that ad-supported == targeted ad-supported. The claim that there is no alternative is false--the alternative is less effective (and therefore less lucrative) ads.

If you ask a HN-reader to choose either 1) less intrusive data collection or 2) more profits to the website, I think it's clear why the user prefers door #1.

View on HN

The better way to frame the choice is 1) less intrusive data collection or 2) ads relevant to what you might actually be interested in.

Some people don't like simple remarketing, but I do. It's not so bad that Bonobos reminds me to buy pants from them every once and awhile... I like their pants ;)

And I'm not sure of the brand effect display ads have had on me but I know I'd rather see something relevant to business, finance, or tech, as opposed to feminine products or entertainment magazines.

Yes, I'm speaking the advertising industry party line, but I do kind of agree with it.

You happen to like when ads are targeted at you.

Do you think everyone likes these ads, and the ones who are complaining are just whining without really thinking about what great pants they could be buying?

Do you think some other people may not like these ads? Is it odd that those people would try to pressure companies into not showing these ads?

Do you think one side of the other is in the majority here? Can either side speak "for" the masses, who don't talk about/understand ads one way or the other?

I didn't presuppose any of that. I was only pointing out that you framed the question as: "Do I want a good thing, or a bad thing?" - obviously you want the good thing

When in reality the question is: "Do I want a thing with good and bad attributes, or another thing with good and bad attributes?" - this reflects the reality of the situation

Facebook using the information we have made available on their network ("intrusive data collection") doesn't really have a negative impact on us as users. At least not in any tangible way.

When I visit any page with a Like button I'm on their network? When they fill in a dummy profile for me before I sign up I'm on their network?

Absolutely. A class-action lawsuit against a mobile analytics company I own a chunk of was thrown out of court recently for exactly that - failure by the plaintiffs to establish actual injury or harm.

If there's no injury, there's no standing, and therefore there's no case.

I refer you to the Beacon advertising adventure. Where Facebook was "just using the data we make available on their network," and users fought back and won.

You last sentence starts with "If there's no injury," which seems to be the topic of discussion here.

Users won, did they? How much were they individually compensated? (No need to look up the answer - users received nothing.)

Facebook settled that particular lawsuit, so no judge had an opportunity to determine whether there was an actual injury or not. Facebook itself admitted no wrongdoing - settling this sort of thing usually means you've done a cost-benefit analysis and it's cheaper and easier to just pay off the lawyers.

As for the independent privacy foundation that Facebook was required to fund - anyone here heard from it lately? (Anyone here heard of it at all?)

And as for Beacon itself being closed - well, it certainly doesn't look like it slowed down Facebook much, did it?

The Beacon lawsuit did nothing for anybody, aside from the plaintiffs' lawyers. Arguing that 'users won' is delusional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com