Slashdot Mirror
83% Of Consumers Believe Personalized Ads Are Morally Wrong (forbes.com)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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
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).
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.
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.
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
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...
We just get manpons
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
... 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'
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.
... 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.
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
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.