I wish the rise of 'targeted ads' lived more up to the stated potential.
As others have noted ads are a tolerable intrusion to the extent they make you aware of a product you hadn't previously heard of but might in fact purchase, or about deals on stuff you would normally purchase, or possibly provide some pure entertainment value.
Under ideal circumstances, you would ONLY be exposed to those sorts of ads and this would be a net benefit for both sides since you now have some additional useful information AND this ad is more likely to convert into an actual sale for the advertiser.
I've talked about my confusion as to why well-established brands feel they need to maintain a strong advertising presence. But almost universally such brands avoid being obnoxious with their ads.
So really, advertising is a problem because it intrudes into spaces where they are unwelcome, provide no useful information to the vast majority of viewers, and are often obnoxious in nature. And advertising/marketing as an industry seems to be trying endlessly to find ways to intrude into more spaces, and become more obnoxious (so as to grab your attention), and don't really care if their information is useful to the viewers so long as they can snag a few more sales out of it.
Arguably worst of all is when you get 'fooled' into interacting with an ad on the assumption that you're getting a 'genuine' interaction out of it and only after you've already committed some time and effort to the interaction does it reveal that in fact they just want to extract money from you. I fear with LLMs this will become more universal.
I think the problem as it exists is that Advertisers are aggressively optimizing for grabbing attention. There is some subset of the population who are very negatively impacted by ads and aren't likely to actually convert into sales. But some large majority of the population accept advertising and actually make purchasing decisions based on what ads grab their attention. So in their zeal to get access to the latter group, there is a large deadweight loss borne by the former group.
So basically, advertisers are acting in ways that don't really consider the total impact of their actions, and arguably they produce many externalities, and their behavior might be changed if they were forced to internalize those costs, but the incentives don't quite align for this to happen.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I wish the rise of 'targeted ads' lived more up to the stated potential.
As others have noted ads are a tolerable intrusion to the extent they make you aware of a product you hadn't previously heard of but might in fact purchase, or about deals on stuff you would normally purchase, or possibly provide some pure entertainment value.
Under ideal circumstances, you would ONLY be exposed to those sorts of ads and this would be a net benefit for both sides since you now have some additional useful information AND this ad is more likely to convert into an actual sale for the advertiser.
I've talked about my confusion as to why well-established brands feel they need to maintain a strong advertising presence. But almost universally such brands avoid being obnoxious with their ads.
So really, advertising is a problem because it intrudes into spaces where they are unwelcome, provide no useful information to the vast majority of viewers, and are often obnoxious in nature. And advertising/marketing as an industry seems to be trying endlessly to find ways to intrude into more spaces, and become more obnoxious (so as to grab your attention), and don't really care if their information is useful to the viewers so long as they can snag a few more sales out of it.
Arguably worst of all is when you get 'fooled' into interacting with an ad on the assumption that you're getting a 'genuine' interaction out of it and only after you've already committed some time and effort to the interaction does it reveal that in fact they just want to extract money from you. I fear with LLMs this will become more universal.
I think the problem as it exists is that Advertisers are aggressively optimizing for grabbing attention. There is some subset of the population who are very negatively impacted by ads and aren't likely to actually convert into sales. But some large majority of the population accept advertising and actually make purchasing decisions based on what ads grab their attention. So in their zeal to get access to the latter group, there is a large deadweight loss borne by the former group.
So basically, advertisers are acting in ways that don't really consider the total impact of their actions, and arguably they produce many externalities, and their behavior might be changed if they were forced to internalize those costs, but the incentives don't quite align for this to happen.
More options
Context Copy link