• sugar_in_your_tea
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s how they should work.

    When I get an ad in the mail, the advertiser doesn’t know that I actually looked at it. When I grab a newspaper ad at the store, the advertiser doesn’t know that I did that unless I use a coupon or something.

    That’s how I’d like online ads to work, but with a bit of targeting based on local-only data.

    If they want me to look at ads, they’re going to need to respect my privacy. If not, I’m content leaving my ad-blocker enabled.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The whole point of targeted advertising is that you get to bid on people you want. You want a old fat guy in Oklahoma? Done You want to advertise gambling apps to people who have a history of gambling? Done.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s certainly true from Google’s or Meta’s perspective, but it wasn’t always that way.

        I get ads in my mailbox that are completely irrelevant to me, like Medicare ads (probably for the previous owner). As a kid, I watched lots of ads on TV that definitely weren’t applicable to me (e.g. cutco knives, when I wasn’t old enough to use a knife). I see billboards on my way to work for debt relief (not in any debt, aside from mortgage) and addiction recovery (no addictions here). Companies pay quite a bit for those ads even if they won’t be relevant for most people because of the sheer reach of those ads.

        I’m proposing a middleground. Ad companies don’t get as accurate of targeting for ads, but in exchange they get seen by people who would otherwise block them.