To be fair, if I choose to buy something, it's almost by definition because I consider the thing useful. It's pretty rare that I purchase something I'd learned about from an ad, but I have done so a few times and benefited from doing so. How is anyone else to determine whether I've been adversely manipulated, i.e. whether the cost of the thing outweighs its benefit to me?
Buying something from an ad isn't really fundamentally different from being influenced by an HN post. For example, thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46294574, I read up on and have decided to experiment with TLA+ on my next project. It's really no concern of mine what Martin Kleppman's commercial interests may ultimately have been in publishing that blog post; I received value from the information all the same.
Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by ads per se. I'd be more bothered by information being withheld from me during searches, e.g. if Brand A could pay Amazon to delist Brands B and C from organic search results, since that would directly guide me toward less optimal purchases. But as far as simply going about my day and seeing a billboard or promoted social media post every now and then, I don't see the big deal. It's generally easy to ignore, it costs me almost nothing, it occasionally helps me, and ultimately it funds a lot of things I like and take for granted (e.g. Chromium, Firefox, and Android).
I'm not saying that people who routinely waste money on irrational purchases don't exist. I just don't find that to be a compelling argument against the existence of a particular market which overwhelmingly benefits almost all of us.
I do have quite strong concerns regarding aggressive data collection, however, and I certainly wouldn't opt in to greater erosion of my privacy — but I see that as a separate issue. To the extent that ad-driven revenue models provide an incentive for companies to facilitate greater privacy invasion, I agree that it's a significant concern which warrants much stronger pushback from the public than it receives. I just think it's important to highlight that mass data harvesting per se is the major issue, more so than any perceived manipulativeness of the fact that brands pay money for exposure.
Then of course there's the issue raised in this post, which is yet again another matter entirely. I'm all for using AI to optimize pricing and efficiency, but "dynamic pricing" as described in the article sounds like a euphemism for price discrimination, and should be more strictly regulated IMO regardless of whether or not AI is involved.
Is it possible that most people are like you and advertisers don’t make money off you but there’s a small amount of people where advertising works and advertisers make big money off those people?
I'm sure there are some "whales" who buy a lot of things they don't need, as suggested earlier, but I also believe people are entitled to the freedom to make their own decisions even if others disagree with those decisions.
That being said, I wouldn't agree that people like me don't provide value to advertisers. Aside from the fact that I do occasionally buy things from ads:
* I also get curious and research products or product categories that I learn about from ads, which translates into increased word-of-mouth, even if I never personally have a need for the thing
* If I see a lot of high-quality and/or high-profile ads for a certain brand over time, I'll be more likely to remember it and my perception of its legitimacy will improve; if I end up ever needing that kind of thing, I'll include the brand in my research of potential options
* Even if I've already purchased the thing, higher perceived legitimacy of its vendor on my part due to advertising presence could still help increase my confidence in its likely longevity, level of support, and mainstreamness, which might potentially translate into mentioning it in certain contexts where I wouldn't have otherwise
If I had to guess, that's probably where the majority of value in advertising lies. Not pure click-through rate or direct conversion, but contribution to broader mindshare. The distinction might be meaningless from a starting point of low or zero mindshare, since the marginal value of any additional mindshare at that point will be higher and the necessary timeline to produce a financial return may be tighter, but a Fortune 500 company probably doesn't buy a TV ad spot with the expectation that a handful of shopaholics will suddenly feel compelled to buy new cars or whatever on the spot.
Buying something from an ad isn't really fundamentally different from being influenced by an HN post. For example, thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46294574, I read up on and have decided to experiment with TLA+ on my next project. It's really no concern of mine what Martin Kleppman's commercial interests may ultimately have been in publishing that blog post; I received value from the information all the same.
Personally, I'm not particularly bothered by ads per se. I'd be more bothered by information being withheld from me during searches, e.g. if Brand A could pay Amazon to delist Brands B and C from organic search results, since that would directly guide me toward less optimal purchases. But as far as simply going about my day and seeing a billboard or promoted social media post every now and then, I don't see the big deal. It's generally easy to ignore, it costs me almost nothing, it occasionally helps me, and ultimately it funds a lot of things I like and take for granted (e.g. Chromium, Firefox, and Android).
I'm not saying that people who routinely waste money on irrational purchases don't exist. I just don't find that to be a compelling argument against the existence of a particular market which overwhelmingly benefits almost all of us.
I do have quite strong concerns regarding aggressive data collection, however, and I certainly wouldn't opt in to greater erosion of my privacy — but I see that as a separate issue. To the extent that ad-driven revenue models provide an incentive for companies to facilitate greater privacy invasion, I agree that it's a significant concern which warrants much stronger pushback from the public than it receives. I just think it's important to highlight that mass data harvesting per se is the major issue, more so than any perceived manipulativeness of the fact that brands pay money for exposure.
Then of course there's the issue raised in this post, which is yet again another matter entirely. I'm all for using AI to optimize pricing and efficiency, but "dynamic pricing" as described in the article sounds like a euphemism for price discrimination, and should be more strictly regulated IMO regardless of whether or not AI is involved.