Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes".

Then you must enjoy being ignorant and immoral, because you don't have perfect information about the markets you're involved in and ads can help you remedy that. Unless you've got an argument that explains why ads should be gotten rid of entirely, and what should happen instead?

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes".

Then you must enjoy being ignorant and immoral, because you don't have perfect information about the markets you're involved in and ads can help you remedy that. Unless you've got an argument that explains why ads should be gotten rid of entirely, and what should happen instead?

I'm sorry, but are you honestly trying to say that advertisements are informative, and not, in fact, lie factories? What planet have you been living on recently?

I think what superpig might have been trying to say was simply that ads are a necessary part of modern economics. Opposing something that makes ads more targeted doesn't make sense from that perspective, assuming that the mechanism for making the targeted ads has no other side effects. Most of the opposition to ideas like this seems to come from the argument: "But, everything that reminds me of 1984 is a terrible idea! We should all live in little opaque boxes and ignore each other!"

@DaedalusOwnsYou: I think Mith was being sarcastic. I can't see a person ever seriously referring to adverts as "lie factories."

Targeted advertising will make adverts less obnoxious, BTW, because they won't be having to compete for your attention so strongly. (Though, of course, there's still no accounting for the occasional ATI Radeon campaign).

Quote: Most of the opposition to ideas like this seems to come from the argument: "But, everything that reminds me of 1984 is a terrible idea! We should all live in little opaque boxes and ignore each other!"

There are good ideas supporting data privacy. Here are some of them:

• People have secrets. Don't want their wife knowing they're cheating, or for their Big Idea to be done by somebody else before they get around to it.


• People often take information will be taken out of context and interpret it badly, because they've got poor philosophy, are misusing statistics, etc.


• Information can be used against you. This ranges from direct things, like a thief finding out how many worth-stealing purchases you've made recently and therefore deciding to target your house above others, to indirect things, like somebody 'inferring' your vote from your records instead of actually letting you vote.


• Even if you trust the person who has the information not to misuse it, they might not be good at keeping it out of the hands of people who will misuse it.

The last two are the major concerns cited against targeted advertising: people are concerned about the ads they're not seeing because they think they might miss something that they'd otherwise have been shown (which is kind of retarded, but still), and they're concerned about the security of the data warehouses these companies build in order to do the targeting.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What if you don't want better targeted ads because you don't want ads? Saying "if we do it right, we'll only get better targeted ads", to me is like saying "we'll only get better targeted mosquitoes".

Then you must enjoy being ignorant and immoral, because you don't have perfect information about the markets you're involved in and ads can help you remedy that. Unless you've got an argument that explains why ads should be gotten rid of entirely, and what should happen instead?

Maybe advertising can help remedy that, but does it actually perform that way in practice? How frequently does it meet the expectation that you set out for it? Is advertising capable of supplying perfect information about the markets? I think not. Can perfect information about the markets be supplied at all? I don't think so. Information, sure. Perfect information? Nope. Your attack on me is baseless. I don't need an argument explaining why advertising should be gotten rid of entirely in order to pose the question I posed. That demand requires begging the question before asking it. The fact is that some people don't want ads at all, improved targeting or not. I didn't say I was one of them. I am sympathetic to the idea, but I recognize that lesser evils are a fact of life. I find advertising to be annoying the way mosquitoes are annoying. Maybe you don't. That's my opinion. I don't think mosquitoes should become extinct, but I'm not interesting in supplying them with a blood feast either. I don't need to propose a replacement for advertising to state my opinion about it just as I don't need to propose a replacement for mosquitoes to complain about them. I think it's very ironic that you would defend advertising with the argument that a person must have a reason to not want it when advertising is largely about giving people ginned up reasons to buy things they don't actually need.

Have you seen the BBC documentary The Century of the Self? It's very interesting. I think you should check it out.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Maybe advertising can help remedy that, but does it actually perform that way in practice? How frequently does it meet the expectation that you set out for it?

How it behaves now isn't relevant to your question. We're talking about how it would behave if it were better developed - better targeted, etc.

Quote: Is advertising capable of supplying perfect information about the markets? I think not. Can perfect information about the markets be supplied at all? I don't think so. Information, sure. Perfect information? Nope.

Of course; perfect information is unattainable. That doesn't mean we can't keep trying to get better information.

Quote: I don't need an argument explaining why advertising should be gotten rid of entirely in order to pose the question I posed.

You require one if you want to persuade me that the viewpoint has any merit.

Quote: The fact is that some people don't want ads at all, improved targeting or not.

Those people must enjoy being ignorant and immoral.

Quote: I don't need to propose a replacement for advertising to state my opinion about it

Sure. But in that case, why are you posting? What were you trying to achieve by stating your opinion?

Quote: Have you seen the BBC documentary The Century of the Self? It's very interesting. I think you should check it out.

I haven't, and shall add it to my to-do list. Thanks.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Maybe advertising can help remedy that, but does it actually perform that way in practice? How frequently does it meet the expectation that you set out for it?

How it behaves now isn't relevant to your question. We're talking about how it would behave if it were better developed - better targeted, etc.

How then are we supposed to tell if the situation is better? What baseline if not now then when? At any rate, targeted advertising is now.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Is advertising capable of supplying perfect information about the markets? I think not. Can perfect information about the markets be supplied at all? I don't think so. Information, sure. Perfect information? Nope.

Of course; perfect information is unattainable. That doesn't mean we can't keep trying to get better information.

Sure, but that's not how you posed your criticism.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: I don't need an argument explaining why advertising should be gotten rid of entirely in order to pose the question I posed.

You require one if you want to persuade me that the viewpoint has any merit.

I don't care what you think of that viewpoint. I wasn't trying to persuade you. I was asking a question.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: The fact is that some people don't want ads at all, improved targeting or not.

Those people must enjoy being ignorant and immoral.

No more than you do. You claim that a person needs an argument explaining why advertising should be gotten rid of entirely in order to persuade you that the viewpoint has any merit. Then you turn around and engage in baseless name calling. How about applying that standard to your name calling? How is it immoral to not want advertising at all?

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: I don't need to propose a replacement for advertising to state my opinion about it

Sure. But in that case, why are you posting? What were you trying to achieve by stating your opinion?

I want to deflate enthusiasm for advertising, targeted or not. I find advertising to be more about manufacturing desire than about providing market information.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Maybe advertising can help remedy that, but does it actually perform that way in practice? How frequently does it meet the expectation that you set out for it?

How it behaves now isn't relevant to your question. We're talking about how it would behave if it were better developed - better targeted, etc.

How then are we supposed to tell if the situation is better?

What do you mean by 'the situation?' If you're talking about advertising in general, then we'll know if it's better because we'll more frequently see that an ad is actually giving us information that we wanted. But, that seems obvious, so I guess you meant something else?

Quote: At any rate, targeted advertising is now.

Quote: Originally posted by Superpig
We're talking about how it would behave if it were better developed - better targeted, etc.

Ads are annoying today, but it's not because they're targeted. I've explained how they'll get less annoying as the targeting gets better.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by superpig
Of course; perfect information is unattainable. That doesn't mean we can't keep trying to get better information.

Sure, but that's not how you posed your criticism.

I said ads can "help you remedy" a lack of perfect information. I didn't say "solve."

Quote: You claim that a person needs an argument explaining why advertising should be gotten rid of entirely in order to persuade you that the viewpoint has any merit. Then you turn around and engage in baseless name calling.

"Ignorant and immoral" is not name calling.

Quote: How is it immoral to not want advertising at all?

It's immoral because it's deliberately rejecting information one could use to make better decisions.

It would not be immoral if the information can't be used to make better personal decisions (i.e. isn't targeted, or you already have all the information).

Quote: Original post by superpig
I want to deflate enthusiasm for advertising, targeted or not. I find advertising to be more about manufacturing desire than about providing market information.

So, you do want to persuade me of some anti-advertising viewpoint, then, or... what? What does 'deflate enthusiasm' mean if not that?