Hacker News Reader

Comment by standardUser | Hacker News Reader

I'm not going to watch this entire video. I just want to ask, what the fuck is going on with those disgusting body horror ads we see all over the internet? Close ups of pimples and wounds and bizzare diagrams of human anatomy that all appear designed specifically to draw the eye (at any cost) but personally just repulse me. There's a whole cross section of websites I won't visit, including some major news sites, because apparently the best they can attract are these garbage advertisers.

View on HN

Usually those types of display ads show up when targeting isn't possible, or your anonymized such that the CPMs for your session are low enough that it's cheap enough for these types of ads to make money.

There are really only 3 buyers of banner/display ads when no targeting is available:

1) Huge multinationals - think geico, coke, etc. Broad awareness campaigns

2) Scams, body horror, YMYL, click-trick, etc. This is what you're seeing. Info products, garbage cosmetics and scam courses have such huge margins that they can spend on broad-targeted placements for very cheap CPMs, with aggressive creatives that are A/B tested to death to get people to click. As long as the CPM is cheap, and the CTRs are high enough, the numbers work.

3) "Inexperienced" ad buyers

I'm not commenting or interested in debating the ethics of tracking and the internet data economy, but a side effect of removing 3rd party targeting is that as attribution goes away, buyers of ads pay less since they can't attribute dollars to campaigns, so you have to move to attribution methods more common in radio and TV. And as costs fall, it gives opportunities to the slimey shit you've been seeing.

Worse are the body shaming ad/games

I have done a reasonable job at fooling Instagram to the extent where they think I'm a woman and I see horrifying ads all the time like the following:

https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/1676597672667381773

I looked further and the key thing that viewers are doing (based on 600k app store reviews which seem to be mostly real) is trying to "give the girl a chance for once" "help her cause nobody else is" etc...

https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/1676631706818805771

There are software engineers and designers working full time making this stuff and they should be horrified.

That is horrifying

That little animation at the end, was there a panel of her going to a gynecologist and a green mist coming from her?

The older I get, the more I can see what Ayn Rand was getting at.

Please resist the urge to go that direction with it

Genuinely, and I’m horrified of all of this, but it’s really something we can change, it’s not hopeless don’t give up humanity.

I don’t think Ayn Rand gave up on humanity at all. Just the worthless nonsense and the people endlessly consume it.

Aynd Rand criticized the welfare state and then went on welfare. She was a complete fraud.

In this critical scenario, are you saying welfare shouldn’t exist or that only believe who are unquestioning of a system are allowed to use it? I don’t think you are making the point you think you are.

Not the original commenter, but I agree with them. To me, it shows that the entire basis of Ayn Rand's philosophy was wrong. She goes on about how amazing capitalism is and the dangers of welfare states, yet the fact that she had to crawl back to the government for that very same welfare shows how necessary it is. It is simply hypocrisy, and I find it infects many of similar libertarian beliefs. This idea that it shouldn't be your responsibility or duty to help others and that everyone should fend for themselves, yet when it is THEM that are disadvantaged, or struggling, suddenly they see how important help can be? It is always rooted in selfishness and egoism. And just because Ayn Rand was a proud egoist doesn't make it right or impressive. Her very life proved her ideology wrong. I don't think there's anything more beautiful than that, really.

How does “it’s dangerous” mean it is never necessary? Or that “I don’t like a government program” mean “I’m not allowed to use it if needed”?

Why wouldn’t I think that that Rand considered it volume problem?

You are confusing the art for the artist. Don’t do that, you’ll be better for it.

Payingt tax for welfare and then using it is not hypocrisy though. (I don't know who Aynd Rand was really. People just seems to name-drop her alot so I guess she was some famous 'thinker')

I think that actually makes total sense in the context of her philosophy. Her objection to welfare comes from the "non-aggression principle," e.g. that she felt it was immoral to use any type of force, violence, or aggression to make other people participate in something they don't agree with. To her, any type of taxes backed by legal penalties was "aggression."

In her view, it would actually be helping right the wrong to accept welfare, especially if you had ever had to pay taxes in the past against your will.

To be clear, I am not trying to argue for, or convince you of her position, but to argue that I believe she faithfully lived by the principles she espoused. In fact, I think much of the problems in her personal life make a pretty strong argument against her philosophy.

I don't know what Ayn Rand thing you're referring to, but I'd be a lot more concerned about the beginning of the ad where she's poking holes in a condom...

Atlas Shrugged.

Yea, that didn’t register at first because she threw it at him, but I get it now. Wow, that’s pretty low class.

It's the allistic version of nerd-sniping.

Do something intentionally wrong to goad a smart alec into trying to do it right.

I think the term is "chumbox".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumbox

(I.e., the icky health ads are a major category of it.)

https://www.fastcompany.com/90843502/the-chumbox-is-still-th...

The original(?) article on chumboxes is still the best:

https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...

These companies want clicks and views. They used to lure you in with curiosity, then with distracting colours and animations, and now with other emotions. Outrage ads and disgust ads get clicks. Any strong emotion that will get your eye drawn to their crap is worth exploiting.

They're also experts at using psychological warfare like well-positioned faces and expressions to trick your eyes into looking at their general area. That's why every clickbait thumbnail has some form of a face with an extreme expression in it.

Adblockers are the only solution. Whether you go with uBlock or AdNauseam, the only way to make this stuff go away is to make their business model unviable.

Super low cost ads that lead to super low cost horrible clickbait content.

You can blame companies like outbrain and taboola for purposefully having horrible advertiser quality standards, and websites who are willing to have that junk on their site. The cycle repeats endlessly, as the horrible sites have.. horrible ads.

I remenber windows putting those kind of ads on windows amd edge

> what the f is going on with those disgusting ads we see all over the internet?

"we see" ? Who is "we" ? Your feed is not my feed, and I don't know what you're talking about.

What's up is an algorithm is taking a guess at what engages _you_. It may be failing badly. Although, you noticed enough to comment, and that's engagement! Rage clicks are still clicks. Understand that and you're closer to knowing what's wrong with all VC-funded social media.

But it's not what "we" see. Ad-wise, there is no such thing.

When I used Facebook I was spammed these "people falling and hurt themself" or car accident videos.

I hate those videos but I got more and more. I think it was because I stopped scrolling and tried to figure out what user was posting those to mute them which the algorithm maybe counted as "engagement".

Or maybe I was more likely to stop scroll the feed and switch tab when those came up, which maybe also counted as engagement.

Etc.

I don't think the algorithm can distinguish like and distaste that good.

> I don't think the algorithm can distinguish like and distaste that good.

Nope, it can not distinguish. It can measure how long you viewed, but not emotional state, It's all "engagement".

I'm gonna join the 2 other commenters to say: stop using Google Chrome.

Why aren't you using an ad-blocker?

You can't block Facebook and Instagram ads.

You can't? The rare times I look on Facebook, I don't see any ads.

Please let me know what's your setup. On macOS and iOS, those are the only two that are defeating all my ad-blockers.

Linux/Firefox/uBlock Origin (I don't use FB on my phone, but I had to I'd use Firefox Nightly/uBO, but I haven't tried it)

Because many sites force you to disable it.

I've seen those before but haven't in awhile. I assume they are eye-catching. Holes in hand, hand pulling wet cloth, jellyfish on hand, spider, hair, etc.

wow i'm so glad i never look at ads

Isn't there a popular fetish of watching procedures to remove pimples and other skin growths?

Yes, what the fuck!? Facebook has started to show this filth in their shorts, that are un-blockable. I have to access Facebook for work and this is just repulsive. I guess if anybody still had any doubt wether the people at Facebook were degenerated perverts, at least there is no such doubt anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com