Hacker News Reader

Comment by JeffffreyF | Hacker News Reader

How is it any different then say, the mormans or whatever knocking on a million doors? Sure the few who convert are happy to have been targeted, but what about all the other people who have been bothered and made to do something just to be as they were before being targeted? "Targeted" in any way, shape, or form is predatory and disrupts the many for the pleasure of a few. Don't pretend it is a good thing for the group.

View on HN

What you just described is the opposite of targeted advertising. Advertising, in general, can be disruptive, but targeted advertising is definitely better than random advertising (which fits better with your example).

A shotgun or a rifle, both are pointed at targets. But yes, some would prefer a cleaner kill. What I'm saying is those who Target their customers better help mostly just themselves and there is no need to lie about it. At least for the publics benefit.

So basically you think all advertising is inherently evil? If so, I don't know what else to say here, because we have a very fundamental disagreement on basic principles.

I personally object to advertising that is "invasive" in the sense that it interferes with my ability to do what I'd otherwise be doing, or makes changes to my environment without my permission... so in computer terms, pop-ups, pop-unders, ads that play sound or video by default (and even worse, can't be disable), those I despise.

But as far as banner ads, emails, etc. go, I mostly don't have a problem with the stuff that's A. easy to ignore, and B. relevant.

That's nothing like what we're talking about. "Targeted" advertising by Mormons would be if they came to the houses of only people who subscribed to a mailing list about Mormonism, routinely logged into a Mormon discussion forum, and had recently purchased a copy of The Book of Mormon.

What the Mormons currently do, as best as I can tell, would better be described as "spray and pray." Or "throw something at the wall and see what sticks."

If they actually did target their solicitation based on some insight about who is actually interested in Mormonism, it would be better for everybody, or almost everybody. The people - like me - who are atheist and don't give a rats ass about Mormonism, would not get bothered by them... the people who were predisposed to join up, would. How is this a bad thing, exactly?

"Targeted" in any way, shape, or form is predatory and disrupts the many for the pleasure of a few.

I don't think "targeted" means what you think it does.

Different was the wrong word. How is it any better(for the targeted) is the question. The assumption that " I know you'll like this" is at best a horrible guess and a lie at worst. I question the belief that tracking a few purchases gives one the ability to have insight into anothers desire to buy your shit.

I question the belief that tracking a few purchases gives one the ability to have insight into anothers desire to buy your shit.

Fair enough. My own empirical observation is that some ad targeting initiatives (the aforementioned Facebook example, the Amazon example) DO result in the delivery of relevant ads, which are actually beneficial to both the buyer and the seller. I won't argue that it guarantees that all ads will be relevant. But if I'm going to see a stream of X ads in a given day, I would personally prefer that the percentage of them that are for things I'd legitimately be interested in, be as high as possible.

Much, much better not to see a stream of ads. That's what's being left out of the discussion. The truth. Don't forget about the point of everything, to make a better life for the living, not just the shareholders. That seems to get left out a lot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com