Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

83% Of Consumers Believe Personalized Ads Are Morally Wrong (forbes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the surveying-surveillance-capitalism dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Forbes: A massive majority of consumers believe that using their data to personalize ads is unethical. And a further 76% believe that personalization to create tailored newsfeeds -- precisely what Facebook, Twitter, and other social applications do every day -- is unethical.

At least, that's what they say on surveys.

RSA surveyed 6,000 adults in Europe and America to evaluate how our attitudes are changing towards data, privacy, and personalization. The results don't look good for surveillance capitalism, or for the free services we rely on every day for social networking, news, and information-finding. "Less than half (48 percent) of consumers believe there are ethical ways companies can use their data," RSA, a fraud prevention and security company, said when releasing the survey results. Oh, and when a compan y gets hacked? Consumers blame the company, not the hacker, the report says.

32 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. kill them all by gravewax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you can drop the personalised "Consumers believe Ads are morally wrong". Ad's used to be kinda ok, but now companies like Google and other Ad purveyors have become such arseholes and so intrusive that I think you would find a majority think they need to be blocked. It seems they think it is their right to intrude on us and how dare we look to stop them. I think it was about 2 years ago when they broke the camels back with the sound and video Ad's, especially the automatic playback or mouseover ones, now all my browsers have an Ad blocker installed, hell even where I am currently contracted is looking at putting an ad blocker into their corporate desktop image.

    1. Re: kill them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly.

      They are so intrusive it's ridiculous. They show up everywhere. Break up content so much you can barely watch or read anything anymore.

      They steal personal data on us to personalize these ads. In many instances they show things that can be kind of questionable to show. In some instances they even have truly obnoxious ads that practically scream at people.

      More crazy yet, using our personal info, they frequently show us things we either already bought or decided not buy. They don't only do it once or twice a day but can even show us 1000s of times a day the same stuff that we are NOT going to buy.

      To be clear, yes, old school advertising is significantly better. I find that often times old school ads will show me relevant items I wasn't aware existed. Now we have these new 'improved' piece of shit ads that can't go away soon enough.

    2. Re: kill them all by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, which is exactly why they are using an ad blocker, like duhh.

      Ads should only ever by aligned with content but that takes time and costs money. No corporations has any right to private information and should by law be required to disclose all information they hold about people to those people.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re: kill them all by fazig · · Score: 2

      These days, the majority of people who access the internet would probably do that through their mobile devices. And it often happens outside of the WiFi they have control over.
      Coincidentally systems where the developer also made it less convenient to block them than on PC operating systems.

      From personal experience, most people can't be assed to do something about it on their own, so they bear it on their mobile devices.

      I would assume that a significant part of the population is exposed to their personalized ads.
      Now I can't speak from personal experience, since I do block ads as well. I don't have looked enough at other people's ads to be sure what they are getting. But if so many complain about it, from what should be a decent sample size (if taken care of other biases), there must be something about it that bothers these people.

  2. All advertising is morally wrong. by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All adverts are morally wrong.

    They either:

    1. Prey on your fears

    2. Exploit your darkest, deepest desires

    3. Promise you an easy-out to your problems

    The best things in life speak for themselves and need no pushing. You find them or they find you by word of mouth, or you see it on your own, or.... you just know about it through some inexplicable mechanism.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:All advertising is morally wrong. by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

      Well no. Adverts aren't forbidden from being neutral - not preying on fears, not exploiting desires, and not promise easy solutions.

      It's just that those adverts that do those things gets more attention by design.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    2. Re:All advertising is morally wrong. by caseih · · Score: 2

      I disagree. Quite often I'll see an ad for a product that solves a particular problem in my current line of work, and occasionally I'll buy the product. If the ad is relevant, non-intrusive, and not pushy, they can be invaluable tools both for the marketer and for the person or business who might need that product (even if he doesn't know it yet). Quite often I've seen an ad in a trade magazine and thought, oh that looks like a very good idea that could really benefit me. So I've bought more than a few things (business-related) because of that.

      Maybe one could argue consumer ads for things no one really needs or can afford are immoral. But not all advertising in general. I don't mind my podcast ads usually because they are actually quite relevant to the interests of the listeners. For example, I learned about a particular VPS provider that way. I also don't mind ads in trade and tech magazines.

      What I'm not interested in are annoying, popup, popunder, interstitial ads on web pages. It's fine to see an ad in a magazine on paper, but not on my computer screen with animations and sound. No thanks. And browsing without an ad blocker is a security risk I can't afford to take.

    3. Re:All advertising is morally wrong. by Yosho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I'd say that there are advertisements that aren't morally wrong. A company that advertises its product by simply stating what it is and how it compares to its competition is doing nothing wrong -- and, in fact, that's how advertisements basically worked before the 1920's. People writing advertisements assumed that other people were rational actors, and that if you wanted somebody to buy your product, you simply had to demonstrate that you made the best product.

      That is, until Edward Bernays, arguably the second most evil man of the 20th century, discovered the concept of exploiting peoples' emotions in order to convince them to buy things they didn't need. That turned out to be shockingly effective, and it's all been downhill since then.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    4. Re:All advertising is morally wrong. by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, all adverts are fraud. Their purpose is to make you buy something you wouldn't otherwise -- ie, to make you do unoptimal decisions. There's also a second effect of making the good's price increased by whatever was the cost of the advertising campaign, making you actually pay for being lied to. The third effect is wasting your time and attention.

      Effects 1 and 3 can be countered with an ad blocker. Setting one up properly might take a bit of time but is strongly beneficial to you in the long run.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  3. Get a real browser by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    One that respects your right as a computer owner to have control over your own computer.
    Don't use a browser from an ad company that protects its approved ads deep into the computer, browser and OS.
    Consider using
    Adblockers
    No script
    U Block and U Block matrix.
    Ghostery.
    Anything to slow and stop tracking away from the site visited.

    Ads will just move to the site and be part of the content generated per user.
    Be ready for ads and tracking to become the site content.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re: Get a real browser by ElderKorean · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Donâ(TM)t forget that most people also use a mobile phone that was created by an advertising company.

  4. They'd be just as outraged by a paywall by unicorn · · Score: 3

    Just try putting content on the web behind a paywall, and just imagine the screams of outrage.

    One wonders how they expect everything on the web to get paid for...

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
    1. Re: They'd be just as outraged by a paywall by tepples · · Score: 2

      Some people want to pay, but they don't want 30 cents per page view to go to the credit card companies. What method of accepting payment without 30 cents per page view going to the credit card companies would you recommend?

  5. So wrong by Livius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find 'personalized' adverts to be morally wrong, profoundly so.

    Aside from violating my dignity as an individual who can make my own choices, the sheer volume of advertising guarantees that I will block them out, either mentally or technologically, which means they are misrepresenting the value of the services to the businesses buying the advertising. So two strikes against them on the question of morality.

    But more often than not I am finding them to be factually wrong, in the sense that whatever guess their algorithm is making about me is wildly inaccurate. For example a few Google searches for the price of an object is far more likely to mean that I have made a purchase of one than it is that I will be highly motivated to make new purchases daily for the following six months.

    Or their inference is so exact and narrow as to be transparently absurd. E.g. Local women seeking 53-year-old!

    And then there's the ones where I try to find a restaurant in a city I'm going to visit and I can't block out adverts for restaurants for the area where I live (you know, the one place I'm guaranteed not to physically be in any time I travel).

  6. Personalized Ads for the thing I already bought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is Econ 101 stuff. The marginal utility of the next $thing is usually close to zero.
    E.g. if I already bought an 80" TV, the chances I need another one are pretty darn small.
    That's the kind of "personalized" ads that Zuckerbook keeps showing me. I really don't understand why people are paying for ads on Zuckerbook. And the ads are invisible to me anyway because I don't even look at them. In that case I'm there to see what my friends are posting and nothing else.
    One of these days the advertisers are going to catch on.

  7. Re: It's okay by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, your example is one of idealistic marketing, which doesn't exist.

    For marketers, the holy grail is getting some idiot to want something that they won't actually ever need or use.

  8. Ban all ads by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    When is the insanity going to stop?

    Normally I don't advocate extreme ideology but after the constant visual pollution of ads (online, billboards, TV, movies) I'm starting to wonder if society just wouldn't be better off with a simple policy:

    Ban all ads. Just ban the fuckers outright.

    The world has existed for thousands of years without the modern exploitative manipulative propaganda and I'll be the first to say:

    And nothing of value was lost.

    A person can dream, right?

  9. Re:I donâ(TM)t get it by dcollins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I see this sentiment widely on Slashdot. And only on Slashdot. I've never once had a face-to-face conversation with anyone and had them say they want more personalized ads. I've been baffled by this Slashdot thinking for a long time.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  10. How was it actually phrased on the questionaire by HiThere · · Score: 2

    FWIW, I believe that personalized ads are fine. It's personalized prices that are immoral.

    BUT!!!
    This requires them to have collected personal information on me, which *isn't* ok. Not unless it's based on things I've bought from them before. And not if they sell it, or leak it, to someone else.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. And 100% of Men by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    And 100% of Men polled did not want to see tampon ads...

    In all seriousness, 100% of people do not want to see ads that are not targeting them.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:And 100% of Men by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Funny

      We just get manpons

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:And 100% of Men by stooo · · Score: 2

      You never were confronted with ads for diapers for the elderly, did you ?

      --
      aaaaaaa
  12. why are there advertisements ? by swell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The main reason that ads exist is that they are for generic products and services. When your product is indistinguishable from all the similar products, one way to sell it is to advertise. There are other ways, such as lowering the price. But generic products tend to be priced near cost anyway. The best way to sell your product is to make it distinctly better than similar products.

    Pepsi and Coke sell essentially the same product: sugar water. As a result they must advertise like crazy to get buyer loyalty. Ford and GM have battled the same way for generations over cars that (despite certain crazed fans) aren't really very different.

    Every week, many of us receive by post a packet of ads from local retailers, supermarkets, restaurants and nail salons. If you look closely you won't find among them an ad for Walmart or Amazon. Why would the worlds largest retailers need to waste money on those ads? Target will occasionally use that medium, hoping to grab some Walmart customers.

    OTOH, Phillips / Norelco actually created two unique products that for a long time lead the field: the first cassette tape recorder and the first rotary electric shaver. They had no real competition and the need for advertising was only to introduce the public to a genuinely new and potentially beneficial product.

    For a few years Apple sold its products with big images of great thinkers (Einstein, etc) and two other elements: the words "think different", and a small Apple logo. No product was mentioned. Elsewhere in the world of personal computers there were 20 brands with names like Compaq, Dell, H-P, etc. They were all making 'clones' and fighting furiously to sell these basically identical products. Lots of ads promoting minor distinctions, but mostly low prices. A race to the bottom.

    If every vendor of goods and services had a unique product that clearly stood out in its field, the need for advertising would be greatly reduced. Thus most of the ads you see are for items that are essentially uninteresting.

    Unfortunately, we benefit from the clones of every industry. The race to the bottom means standardized products and low prices for consumers. We don't have to pay the Apple/Norelco premium price. It's nice that there are innovators, but also good that we have access to affordable traditional products. Thanks to advertising.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  13. What % pay for apps vs. use "free" ad model? by misnohmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many of those 83% refuse to use any app which provides them such personalized ads and/or collects their data in exchange for a "free" app? People say a lot of things on the surveys, but do otherwise in life. I seriously doubt that 83% of people purchase apps when given the "free" option with targeted advertisements.

  14. While I have no love for advertisements at all... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... if know that I have to see ads, I'd still rather see ads that actually are relevant to my own interests or needs than ones that aren't.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  15. Re:While I have no love for advertisements at all. by wierd_w · · Score: 2

    Personally, I would like to see advertisements become expensive to display, thus increasing the benefit to content producers for displaying the ad, and driving total volume of total ads shown waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.

    In other words, the debiers model. Diamonds are extremely common. The price is kept artificially high through a marketing campaign that reinforces the notion that they are rare, coupled with an aggressive supply side monopoly and warehousing operation.

    By ensuring only a select number of diamonds hit market, the prices stay high.

    Same thing here with adverts. When the supply (of viewers) is restricted (by not showing adverts), the advertisers must pay more per advert impression, allowing fewer adverts to be displayed, for the same revenue stream.

    Adverts are indeed a needed thing. What we DO NOT need, and what the public DOES NOT WANT, is to be so saturated under an avalanche of advertisements that the value of each advertisement is close to zero, forcing content producers to ever increase the number of adverts to sustain their content production businesses. "Targeted adverts!" are just the latest in a downward spiral toward a singularity of infinite adverts that the current trends are driving. People do not want it. Content delivery people do not want it. The only people that want it are advertisement agencies, and people with shit products they want to sell.

    Quality over quantity. One ad per page view.

    This needs to be the goal that needs to be driven home. Not "Oh, but those poor advert companies **NEEED* to know all about you so they can make ends meet! Have you seen the falling value of ad impressions lately!?"

    If the feds made some regulatory laws about this, limiting number of adverts and data aggregation scripts per page view, I would be all for it.

  16. Devils advocate / rant by geekymachoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate ads, personalized or not, and I use an adblocker. However, I also run a site that requires hours of attention every day from multiple people, and many of people here use it often.

    When we suggest our users to do donations, they refused.
    When we suggested premium membership model, they refused.

    99% of the users want the content that 4 people maintain, for free, demand it what's more, and we even got blamed that we're extorting users by having a premium membership and ads, not realizing that if the ads were gone tomorrow - the service would be gone too.. and premium membership was a way for us to DISABLE ads. Eventually, we got rid of premium as it was useless.
    Don't want personalized or otherwise fucking ads ? Pay for the shit you use, because ... I don't get the servers for free, nor the bandwidth... nor the knowledge how to program, set servers up, maintain all of that and create content.

    1. Re:Devils advocate / rant by hjf · · Score: 2

      Ads are what keep the internet working.
      No ads means no internet. Ads are the "business model" not of a "website" but of the whole fucking thing. Take ads out of equation and you get the "academic" internet again.

    2. Re:Devils advocate / rant by hjf · · Score: 2

      no. there are no solutions. this is how things are.
      People DO NOT LIKE TO PAY FOR STUFF. Simple as that.
      And i'm not going to "subscribe" to every fucking website I visit *AND GIVE THEM ALL MY PERSONAL DATA SO THEY CAN BILL MY CREDIT CARD* just because some fucking nerd on slashdot doesn't like ads.

    3. Re:Devils advocate / rant by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      If you can't get people to donate because they love what you're doing, what you're doing isn't valuable to them or unique enough to differentiate you from others.

      It's a harsh truth. And if you want to do it no matter what, great. That's a nice hobby that makes you happy. But don't complain that your viewers aren't supporting you if you're in this for a hobby.

      That said, have you tried Patreon? I keep spending more and more money there on people doing shit I enjoy seeing. Music, comics, videos, educational series, social change projects, etc. It's really easy for me to say, "Yeah, they are worth a beer a month to support." Especially when I get special treatment because of it.

      That's the real hook with Patreon. Your premium was "pay us or we'll irritate you with ads". That's a protection racket. Patreon is generally set up more as a "the more you pay, the more cool access to us you get" sort of deal.

      Some of the people I support there give early access to their stuff before it hits the public website, allow supporter feedback on early drafts, let supporters drive the direction of their work, get feedback on scripts and plots, and use their biggest fans as a soundingboard before unleashing their stuff on the public. That makes their big fans even bigger fans, and gets them personally invested in the work. If you can't get some folks to donate $5 a month for something like that, you really don't have fans.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Devils advocate / rant by ortholattice · · Score: 2

      I don't have premium memberships on any sites, not necessarily because I don't think they're worth it (often the fees are rather modest), but simply because I hate setting up an account, giving them my email address and personal info, risking my credit card data (and not being sure there won't be automatic renewals that are nearly impossible to stop), etc.

      One possibility I might consider is buying a membership from a third party like Amazon, something like a gift card, where a code number gives me access to the site from say up to 10 different computer+browsers for a set period of time. Otherwise, the site knows nothing about me, won't bug me with email spam, and in general leaves me alone.

      Maybe I'm different from most people, but it's something I might experiment with if I had a site where people weren't "biting" the premium membership offer.

  17. Not creepy, just oddly useless by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Suppose I'm in the market for a new camera lens. I google for tech reviews and user critiques. I make a choice, and then jump onto Amazon.

    A week after my new lens arrives, every online ad I see is suddenly for the lenses I searched for, including all the ones I didn't buy. What have all these advertisers bought from Google, exactly? While I'm out on the trail shooting with my new lens, they are funneling targeted ads they paid a premium for to a target market that no longer exists.