7 ms·
You're missing his argument completely, which is that targeted advertising has upsides for both the advertiser and the consumer. While I prefer no ads over ads,
by rescripting 13y ago
You're missing his argument completely, which is that targeted advertising has upsides for both the advertiser and the consumer. While I prefer no ads over ads, given the choice I'd prefer relevant ads vs random ads.
That being said targeted advertising infringes on your privacy. Rail against it for that reason. Don't make false assertions that people would prefer random advertising than advertising that they may actually be able to use.
- oafitupa 13y agoHe understood his argument just fine.
- d0mine 13y agoYou are assuming a benevolent advertiser that uses knowledge about you in a way that is aligned with your long-term interests. If we assume that a white noise advertising is less effective than a targeted advertising then it is in the interest of most people to prefer the former because a benevolent advertiser is a rare bird in real life.
- Houshalter 13y agoWhat he is saying is that advertisements manipulate you (likely without your knowledge) and that this is a net cost the the consumer (not to mention even dirtier ads for scams and malware, that's a different subject.) The other kinds of advertisement, the ones that actually inform you of something that is useful to you, do exist. But how much of a benefit are they? I don't think I've ever clicked on an internet ad or bought something because of one.