As a consumer, I do not want ad relevance. In fact, I hate targeted ads. I do not feel served when mega-corporations unscrupulously track literally everything about me so they can try to sell me crap I don't need. I play the worlds smallest violin for the businesses who have to "bear the brunt" of not knowing how many steps I've taken today, or what times I went the bathroom.
I think another way to look at it is: value exchange.
What do I get in exchange for what I share. To me, learning about new products and services from companies that I don't already have an existing relationship with is far more valuable than the data shared. I want the inventor of a better mouse trap to reach out to me and let me know of their product.
We're looking at asymmetrical warfare between incredibly advanced targeting algorithms, and our monkey-brains.
It's all fun and games when you're selling moustraps, but what about when the algorithm finds out you have a predisposition towards addiction and realizes it can profit from that by showing you ads for alcohol and pharmaceuticals?
What happens when it learns that you have a gambling problem?
What happens when it learns that you're a hypochondriac?
What happens when it learns that you have a retail addiction?
What happens when your ad profile identifies you as somebody who has had an abortion in one of the states where it's illegal? Can the ad company be subpoenaed?
What happens when an insurance company goes to a data-broker and finds out that you've been googling cancer symptoms? Would their access to this information change your premiums or eligibility?
> What happens when it learns that you're a hypochondriac?
> What happens when an insurance company goes to a data-broker and finds out that you've been googling cancer symptoms?
1) We cannot solely rely on Apple's selective definition of privacy to resolve these. As an example, what if your health insurance company offers an app and you use that app to search for cancer? Should the insurance company be able to use that data? We need very strong legal protections as a more comprehensive solution that works across all types of data companies can gather to make medical decisions.
> What happens when it learns that you have a gambling problem?
> What happens when it learns that you have a retail addiction?
2) You need to consider that (1) advertisers don't need to learn this! People willingly give them this data (e.g. by signing up for a sports betting app), and (2) this also opens the door to reach people to help them. No targeted advertising does not mean that these societal issues just disappear. These are still there but just harder to see.
> What happens when your ad profile identifies you as somebody who has had an abortion in one of the states where it's illegal? Can the ad company be subpoenaed?
3) While I abhor the decision on Roe vs Wade, let's flip this to: what if the ad profile identifies you as a seller of fentanyl? Would you want the ads data to be eligible for use in prosecution? I would. Saying that banning targeted ads protects women's privacy is security through obfuscation. That is not a solution.
1) So from the jump, you're counting on legislation to work against the interest of big insurance. You might be waiting a while.
2)This position presents a pretty messed up vision of the world IMO. As if the ideal state of things is that Google/Apple/Meta holds auctions where Draft Kings, Poker Stars, and a gambling support line can bid on a gambling addict's attention.
3) Asserting that targeted ad sales are good because they identify criminals is a big stretch imo
I think that we as a society decided that our solution to people with addictive personalities is to let natural selection take its course. There's way too much money to to made in the misery to try to apply those brakes.
> What happens when an insurance company goes to a data-broker and finds out that you've been googling cancer symptoms? Would their access to this information change your premiums or eligibility?
I have seen the opposite happen way more often. I was on the market for a new wallet, specifically one made by a one-man operation in France. As soon as I started looking for reviews, targeted ads from larger brands like Fossil and Ridge started following me. The current ad landscape isn't giving the little guy a kick at the can, it's just letting them into the same extortion based ad markets the big guys compete in.
The last part of your reply is an interesting point. As one of those little guys who enjoys getting a kick at the can, I see self-feeding spiral of the present ad marketplace with disdain.
Two years ago it was different and a lot of small companies could compete. CPAs were well below anything I ever saw in the world of print advertising. Very efficient.
Now, it seems we've gone back 10 years in time. Only large brands are bringing in enough gross margin dollars to run poorly targeted campaigns. This is likely to get much, much worse as small companies exit the stage entirely.
The sad thing is that there is really no where else for a small company to go for acquisition marketing. Can't go back to print. The only outlet left is selling in large marketplaces like Amazon where the competition is apt to steal your product (not to mention the insane fees).
If you are a fan of Apple, this is pretty bad news I think, they are getting deeper into a dirty market, and will probably get hit by the ad curse as well. But, as someone who doesn't particularly care about them, it will be pretty funny to see them blatantly eat Facebook's lunch.
Yup. The advertising apocalypse has been a complete horror show for many small businesses. But super excited people have their privacy so that only the bigoted of the big can afford to show them ads.
