
Mark Zuckerberg’s Delusion of Consumer Consent - munk-a
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/opinion/zuckerberg-facebook-ads.html
======
burtonator
The research here is amazingly flawed.

They ASKED users what they wanted.

If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly
learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact
opposite.

First. If you ask users if they would use a site that has ads, the percentage
that say they don't want ads (which is probably a majority) are also the same
ones that won't pay for the site.

This is a demonstration of consumer irrationality. It's usually either A or
B.. not neither A nor B.

There are basically three main revenue models online:

1\. ads. 2\. paid content. 3\. you're the product.

Now #3 might not ALWAYS be bad. Duolingo for example can use the feedback they
get from users using the app to improve the service and some users DO pay to
remove the ads. When you're using it in a freemium capacity you're actually
paying to help train Duolingo.

With Facebook they're mostly #3...

A better way to do this would be behavioral analysis.

The first is to find out if consumers want ads or would they rather pay for a
service directly.

The answer is overwhelmingly in favor of them NOT paying directly. They would
rather be the product or see ads.

Don't believe me? Do you see any social networks that charge money? There are
some somewhat freemium platforms like Wordpress (which still has ads) but for
the most part the vast majority of the revenue online does not come directly
from consumers.

Now... do users want customized ads?

Again. The data is overwhelming here.

Between two ads, one tailored to the user , and another random ad, the more
targeted it is the greater conversion rate.

~~~
anoncake
> If you've every done anything with behavioral analysis online you'll quickly
> learn that users say they want one thing and then often behave the exact
> opposite.

Then people don't do what they want. Because they're weak-willed and/or being
manipulated.

If you give someone cake and they eat it, does that indicate that they want to
be fat?

~~~
chillacy
It’s always so difficult to discuss issues like this due to a limitation of
English. In particular the words “they” and “want” are far too ambiguous.

------
djohnston
I'm a little confused. When I looked at the study they linked, they don't pose
an alternative question, like, "Or ads that aren't tailored to your
interests." If you only ask if they want to see ads, wouldn't they obviously
say no?

~~~
devoply
Why don't we just create a database with all of our interests and the let
companies use that database to send offers directly to us and then have tools
that we can use to sort through those offers...

~~~
djohnston
i like the idea in principle, but who hosts the database?

~~~
devoply
a non-profit.

------
grkn
There are many other companies which collect the same amount or more data than
Facebook does and they use it for the same purpose: targeted advertising.
Putting the other issues Facebook had with Cambridge analytica or getting 50
million users' info hacked aside, I'm struggling to understand why articles
like this from NYTimes are pointed just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in
they are the only ones who provide targeted advertising platform. As I
mentioned that's the whole multi-billion dollar industry that allows companies
to do the targeted and programmable advertising and yes, it's pretty much the
business model of the internet.

At this point, I feel like they are just abusing the situation and writing
everything like Facebook did yet another more terrible thing.

~~~
tivert
> I'm struggling to understand why articles like this from NYTimes are pointed
> just only to Zuckerberg and Facebook as in they are the only ones who
> provide targeted advertising platform.

Facebook has a recognizable face that can make statements that can be
critiqued, the ill-defined "many other companies" do not. Focusing on Facebook
make the issue easier to understand, but the issues raised apply to all
targeted advertising companies that try to justify themselves to consumers.

~~~
grkn
> Focusing on Facebook make the issue easier to understand, but the issues
> raised apply to all targeted advertising companies that try to justify
> themselves to consumers

Then they should also mention that in their articles. Because in the existing
form, for a not techie people it sounds like _only_ Facebook has been doing
this and that's not the case.

"Many other companies" includes Google, Twitter, Ad networks like Adroll etc.
I don't think there is a need to list all of them in here :)

------
nkingsy
The cited survey was from 2012. The questions were mostly in this vein:

x 64% of Americans say their likelihood of voting for a candidate they support
would decrease (37% say decrease a lot, 27% say decrease somewhat) if they
learn a candidate’s campaign organization buys information about their online
activities and their neighbor’s online activities—and then sends them
different political messages it thinks will appeal to them. [This activity is
common during the 2012 election.]

Nowhere in the survey did they ask "would you rather see targeted ads or
random ads?"

The results are still somewhat surprising, as clearly voters are not backing
up these numbers at the polls.

------
martimarkov
Wow. This article got punished for some reason. I’d love to see the algorithm
behind this if it wasn’t done by a moderator.

35 points in 34 minutes was #1 now #17.

~~~
908087
FB employees and/or "reputation managers" abusing the flag button, I'm
guessing.

------
AndrewKemendo
I posted about this before and I think it's relevant here again. Automated
personalization (Predominant existing implementation of AI) and privacy are
incompatible [1].

That's the case that Zuckerburg is making. However he goes further and
effectively says "...and this level of personalization is what people have
told us they want."

Now this NYT piece says that, in fact, people have explicitly said they don't
want that.

Doubly so when they understand what it takes to get that level of
personalization. So the conversation is important, and I think people need to
make it with clear eyes.

[1] [https://medium.com/@andrewkemendo/artificial-intelligence-
an...](https://medium.com/@andrewkemendo/artificial-intelligence-and-privacy-
are-incompatible-5375035f15c0)

------
ACow_Adonis
Its only a delusion if you're naive enough to think he believes it. His output
is much better understood as political, propaganda, and marketing exercises
rather than good faith communication.

------
chiefalchemist
IDK, perhaps it's my bias against NYT (for too many years of too little too
late reporting) but this type of analysis feels...well...um...like too little
too late. It's not like anyone on FB is going to read this and suddenly
reconsider their relationship with FB and/or their opinion of Mr Z.

Finally, Z has no delusions. He knows exactly what FB is, as well as what (and
then some) the masses will be willing to forfeit in order to bolster FB's
bottom line.

------
bungle
Facebook could sell less invasive adds targeting without selling you. E.g.
based on groups. E.g. if I join group called "cat lovers", they could show me
cat related adds when I go to that group page, or if my current visible stream
has that groups' posts. But what they actually do is they package me as
sellable with all my private info and perhaps whatever I have written ever or
any sites I have visited.

------
explainplease
Regardless of how one feels about Facebook, has anyone stopped to ask why
Facebook and Zuckerberg are getting such an avalanche of negative coverage
from the mainstream media? Why have they suddenly united against him?

~~~
martimarkov
I think it’s as simple as: the general public will consume this because
they’ve heard about the data breach and it’s something that will get their
attention. I think it will last for a few more months and then they will find
something else to write about as people will become agnostic towards anything
Facebook related

------
mudil
[https://outline.com/x2v2Sm](https://outline.com/x2v2Sm)

------
cwkoss
Mark Zuckerberg is a sociopath, the world would probably better off if he had
a stroke five years ago.

I'm shocked that shareholders have kept him around - his personal brand is a
huge liability for the company.

