Pernicious as it may be, ads being able to exclude people is a natural evolution of ads, not something malicious as it has been portrayed often recently.
In the past it was up to the ad buyer to attempt to exclude people based on their wits. I want to use site X because it has these people instead of site Y because it has those people. Totally normal.
Now we are debating on the right to see ads because Facebook has such a powerful platform.
I am all for the debate, what I am not about is acting like this is something other-worldly. The impression based ad, the viewership based ad, and demographics, have worked this way throughout modern history.
Ads have moved from being ostensibly invisible, to literally invisible. That is the line we're drawing?
> not something malicious as it has been portrayed often recently.
That's a good point, in that they may not malicious by intent. We do have to look into what effect they're having and whether that's what we actually want. Accepting it as okay because it wasn't done with the intent to harm or accepting it as that's just the way it is is not acceptable, in my opinion.
> "Ads have moved from being ostensibly invisible, to literally invisible. That is the line we're drawing?"
I'm not sure I follow you here. I do think there is a qualitative difference between advertising in a way that is visible to inspection by others and that which is targeted to the individual. One example, from a consumer protection standpoint, how can you ensure truth in advertising if you don't know what ads are being shown to different demographics? In a political context, this is even more problematic. We're having a hard enough time agreeing on basic facts in some circumstances. If different populations are seeing different political advertisements, and people can't know what others are being exposed to, it leads to a situation which is potentially even more insidious. This is different from what has come before.
I see shades of the naturalistic fallacy here: just because this is the way it is doesn't mean it's the way we want it or the way it has to be.
If you advertise at Macy's certain people will not see the ad. They may not know the product even exists. That's what I meant by ostensibly invisible.
To your larger point. I'm having a hard time understanding where the line is in removing this type of freedom to advertise the way companies want to because of the affects it might have.
I'm going to have to bow out of this because I haven't made up my mind. I am certainly enjoying the conversation though.
Please do read some Tufekci. She does a much better job describing this than I do (unsurprising, given she's studied it extensively), and I hesitate from regurgitating her here wholesale. She did a podcast with Sam Harris that I found illuminating, if you prefer that format.
In the past it was up to the ad buyer to attempt to exclude people based on their wits. I want to use site X because it has these people instead of site Y because it has those people. Totally normal.
Now we are debating on the right to see ads because Facebook has such a powerful platform.
I am all for the debate, what I am not about is acting like this is something other-worldly. The impression based ad, the viewership based ad, and demographics, have worked this way throughout modern history.
Ads have moved from being ostensibly invisible, to literally invisible. That is the line we're drawing?