
Data points that Facebook uses to target ads - suprgeek
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/19/98-personal-data-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to-you
======
erikb
"perfectly targeted ads"? Never had that experience.

Even if I summarize all the analytics solutions out there, like ads, Facebook
stream, Youtube, Amazon, Netflix. What they usually do is they figure out what
I did in recent history or in general and present me more of that. I don't
know about other people, but that's absolutely not what I want. That's boring,
or maybe even unnecessary.

Like, if I just bought a book about Linux system administration the only
reason I would buy a second one would be because the first one sucked (and
Amazon knows the ratings of the books). A reasonable suggestion after that
would be something people do with Linux, like hosting a Wordpress blog.
Honestly I might not even know what I would do with my newly acquired skill
once I succeeded with that topic. Also it's quite tiresome to learn. Maybe
after reading 30% of it I would like to insert a simple but interesting novel
or comic book. Why not suggest something like that to me?

Or I just watched an action movie on Netflix. Then I don't need other action
movie suggestions. After that maybe I want to watch a character focussed tv
show.

What we need is not a "I know what you did and here is more of that"
suggestion engine. What we need is a "oh that's getting boring, here is other
awesome stuff that may surprise you" suggestion engine. Figure out the stuff I
don't know I want and then suggest that.

And honestly, not a single of these billion-dollar-engines out there do that
for me at the moment.

~~~
wvrvwwwe
> _What we need is not a "I know what you did and here is more of that"
> suggestion engine_

I really agree on this. The Youtube homepage exemplifies it for me. It
recommends only content the same as or very similar to what I've watched
before, and only the most popular of that. I've watched a ton of conference
talks, programming tutorials, etc. yet those never show up. It's mostly junk
with clickbait titles from big channels.

I do like Youtube's recommendation algorithm for the side bar suggestions on a
video page, though I get more sponsored-looking content now than in the past.
It's been useful at least for finding music. And YT does have a page for
improving homepage recommendations, which granted I haven't tried yet.

~~~
anexprogrammer
"I do like Youtube's recommendation algorithm for the side bar suggestions"

You do? It does ok if I'm watching something technical or some reviews. It's
laughably bad at music and wider interest content such as a documentary. If
you hit a music track, 50% of the recommendations are the same damn track in
degrading levels of quality, 30% the same band. The 10% that's left for other
artists are normally a really bad connection to the mood. The last 10% lately
is taken by awfully bad match, clearly sponsored, junk though never identified
as sponsored.

Most of the time I'd like suggestions in the same genre or mood of music. If
I've just watched an upbeat rock track why not suggest other upbeat rock
tracks? Last.fm radio was superb at this, for years, until CBS destroyed it.
So it can't be that hard.

I think the only times I use the sidebar is if the vid I landed on is terrible
quality or a bad hit.

~~~
wvrvwwwe
I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but I only seek out full
albums. I've found that YT does pretty well for classic rock, metal, and
electronica, and ok for older Jazz and classical music.

I tried it out just now for an album I like. I get about 25% unrelated junk or
stuff I've already watched, but the rest are also full albums that seem like
fairly solid recommendations based on the album at hand (Jan Jelinek's "Loop
Finding Jazz Records").

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hIgBEXuQD8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hIgBEXuQD8)

~~~
anexprogrammer
Interesting. I very rarely search whole albums on YT but often rock and metal.

Start with a random metal track in mind an I find I get a band mix suggestion,
a nordic folk metal mix, 11 more tracks from the same band, 3 tracks I
listened to very recently, 4 connected other artists and "5 CREEPIEST Old
Found Footages - Recommended for you" as a perfect example of the crap being
injected recently. They must notice I've never once clicked one.

I do clear cookies and history periodically, so perhaps not having a multiple
year history counts against.

~~~
wvrvwwwe
> I do clear cookies and history periodically, so perhaps not having a
> multiple year history counts against.

In that other link I posted YT suggests pruning your watched history to get
better recommendations -- but that's a huge undertaking given the thousands of
garbage videos that I've clicked out of in five seconds. Seems like it would
be better if the algorithm only operated on data from videos a user manually
"likes".

------
nsxwolf
I like when they show me ads for the expensive thing I already bought, as if
I'm going to buy it again. Had they predicted I wanted to buy that thing, and
shown me ads for things like it first, that might have been useful.

~~~
cricalix
That happens all across the 'net though, not just on Facebook. Happens to me
with Amazon all the time - they have records of me eyeing something up, I buy
it a day later, and 2 days later they're still pestering me around the 'net
with ads about that thing.

~~~
o_____________o
This is intentional. They're shaping your perception of the purchase by
mitigating remorse.

~~~
Shoop
Are you sure? I often see ads for the same type of thing but from multiple
competing brands.

------
frik
You wouldn't see such an article on WashingtonPost before 2013. The former
owner of the Post Donald Edward Graham was the mentor of Zuckerberg and Mr
Graham is the lead independent director of Facebook's board of directors.

------
zappo2938
When people purchase GQ or Vogue, they are buying it as much for
advertisements as for editorial content. When someone flips through one of
those magazines, it's like they appreciate the designers hiring models, taking
pictures, and sharing it in the magazine even though both they and the reader
paid. Take the ads out of GQ or Vogue and there is almost nothing there.

If I create an ad on Facebook and people click on it, leave comments, and
share it, Facebook will mark it as quality content and discounts the price per
impression. It seems that Facebook wants to create the ad experience of GQ or
Vogue and gives money incentive for advertisers to do it.

Facebook knows I'm into technology and web development. There are lots of
great products for web developers created every month. Facebook is a way for
companies to find people who are interested in their products. It helps people
learn about new products and it helps companies target people who are
interested in their new products.

There was a fundraising concert last year for a local charity. I volunteered
$300 and time to do Facebook advertising. It yielded several thousands of
dollars in ticket sales. For $300 Facebook let me communicate to people who
really cared about either the bands who were playing or to people who really
cared about the project what was happening. Facebook let me target people who
like Candelbox within 40 miles of the venue.

This is good. I don't understand why people hate on it so much.

~~~
beefield
> This is good. I don't understand why people hate on it so much.

I think following quote by Banksy/Sean Tejaratchi[1] explains why there are so
strong feelings about advertizing. Of course, not _all_ advertizing is bad, as
your example shows. Only the vast majority...

"People are taking the piss out of you every day. They butt into your life,
take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall
buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that
imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else.
They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the
most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with
it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property
rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they
like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you
see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do
whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock
someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe
them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put
themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even
start asking for theirs."

[1][https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Banksy](https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Banksy)

~~~
witty_username
> You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property
> rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever
> they like with total impunity.

Completely wrong. Advertisers have to follow the law and that includes these
laws. For example, if an advertisers uses your photo without your permission,
you can sue them for copyright infringement.

~~~
beefield
Of course. Maybe it is good to note that the quote is from a graffiti artist
around ten years ago. From his point of view advertisers are allowed almost
anything compared to what he is allowed, which is pretty much nothing.

~~~
kobayashi
That's such a shallow and self-serving view, though.

Advertisers must negotiate and pay a property-owner for the right to display
their ad. Graffiti artists are able to enter into similar agreements. When
graffiti is authorized and/or invited by property owners, the artwork is
welcome. When unauthorized, graffiti is usually no more than vandalism of
someone else's property and thus infringement on their personal rights.

~~~
beefield
Yes, but how I read that sentence is that Banksy is talking about the
relationship between the advertiser and the one seeing the advert, not the one
selling the space to advert. _Even_ _if_ Banksy made all required agreements,
he would still be severely limited regarding how he is allowed to use existing
ads and e.g. communicate to the people criticism regarding the ads. I do not
expect everyone to agree with his views, as this is pretty much the core of
the IP discussion that has been going on for quite a long time.

(And just to note, I almost kept only the first paragraph of my original
comment for why people have strong feelings against ads, but decided to
include also the rest for some context.)

------
newsat13
Does anyone know of any startups or upcoming projects that are trying to
compete with Facebook (i.e building a social network?).

I still haven't managed to wrap my head around how exactly facebook makes
money. Do so many people actually click on ads? And this somehow makes
billions? I find it very hard to imagine (for myself).

~~~
20years
Yes people do click on Facebook ads and they convert extremely well when
utilizing Facebooks targeting correctly. I have ran very targeted ads on FB
that have achieved a 20% CTR and 10x ROI. This was for a product appealing to
8 to 12 year olds. I targeted Moms with kids in this age range in specific
locations and who fell within a certain income.

Other small business ads such as local coffee shops, restaurants, etc. that
advertise deals/coupons also convert very well and get shared like crazy.

~~~
Throwaway23412
Facebook has nearly two billion users. The average user only needs to make FB
$20 through a few ad purchases made on a whim and you've already doubled FB's
yearly revenue. I've spent more money using restaurant coupons that came
through the mail. It wouldn't even be that hard to target the average HN user:
"20% off a GTX 1080!" Boom, done.

------
jypepin
I definitely notice facebook ads being more and more interesting to me. And
even more interesting is that most ads are of the "need creation" type. Things
I didn't really google anything about, or I never really thought as a product
I would buy that show up and are actually relevant to me.

Last one I can remember is from yesterday a new startup doing good, cheap
luggage (both carry on and bigger ones) which had me go to their website,
spend some time looking at some of their stuff and made me think that I new a
new carry on since then and I'm very close in puttin $250 in a carry on...

I guess I travel pretty frequently I don't know if facebook is able to say
that I travel a lot by different locations I check in, or from my use of
google flights and booking.com etc. but yeah, I never googled anything about
luggage or buying anything else related to travelling (except hotel and plane
tickets). So pretty interesting to see

------
clumsysmurf
Yet another book out recently which explores this topic:

"Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens
Democracy"

[https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Math-Destruction-Increases-
In...](https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Math-Destruction-Increases-
Inequality/dp/0553418815)

------
jonathankoren
Like everyone, we get a quite a bit of junk mail at our house. Some of it
comes to "current resident", others target us by name. Broadly speaking it
breaks into two groups. Things that are either geotargeted. (In my
neighborhood, that would include ads such as "Why don't you lease a car
through Uber and pay for it by driving!") and those that are more personally
targeted (think credit card offers).

Today we got an interesting one. It was an offer to try Blue Apron. If we
lived in Palo Alto, I'd chalk it up to geotargeting rich neighborhoods, but we
don't live in one. Also, it came to wife who posts recipes on Facebook. It's
enough to make us wonder if Blue Apron is somehow linking Facebook targeting
data with real world names and addresses. Now I don't know if it's true, but
if it is, that's creepy as fuck. That's autodoxing.

~~~
kaybe
Germany has a law which allows you to adblock your mailbox. If you put a
sticker on sayin 'no advertisements', you can sue any company that puts
material without your name on it in.

~~~
sib
Curious: How would companies that mail things to you know that there is a
sticker on your (physical) mailbox?

Or do you mean that random companies are allowed to put things into your
mailbox? In the US, only the US Postal Service is allowed to put things into
your mailbox - not even FedEx or UPS are allowed to use it.

~~~
kaybe
There are companies using the postal service to send advertisements such as
catalogs to all households in an area. If the mail does not have your name on
it (no name, or something like 'to the residents of your address') they can't
put it in.

That holds for other random companies too. It's allowed in general to put
paper in mailboxes I think, especially local businesses such as take-out food
places do it occasionally.

------
wtracy
Any ideas how Facebook acquires information about things like home ownership?
I don't recall filling that out as part of my profile.

Do they perhaps match users' identities to public records? Is it possible to
look up home ownership given just a name, demographic information, and contact
information?

~~~
e28eta
"Facebook offers marketers the option to target ads according to data compiled
by firms like Experian, Acxiom and Epsilon, which have historically fueled
mailing lists and other sorts of offline efforts. These firms build their
profiles over a period of years, gathering data from government and public
records, consumer contests, warranties and surveys, and private commercial
sources — like loyalty card purchase histories or magazine subscription
lists."

------
chirau
Contrary to popular opinion, people want to see ads.

A good ad is very much appreciated. This is why magazines still make money.
This is why the SuperBowl is popular amongst non-football fans. Unfortunately,
most ads are spammy which is why internet ads have earned this terrible
reputation.

~~~
burkaman
Super Bowl is sort of a good point, but what do you mean by magazines? Given a
choice between a magazine with and without ads, are you saying some people
would choose the one with ads? I don't think anybody seeks out ads, especially
when they're paying for something. Super Bowl ads are only popular because
they're essentially comedy skits and short films, they're basically free, and
they're part of a cultural event that everyone you know watches. Almost nobody
likes them because they appreciate quality marketing content or something.

~~~
morgante
> Almost nobody likes them because they appreciate quality marketing content
> or something.

Quality marketing _is_ fun to watch.

Hence the people (including myself) who only watch the ads. It's hardly
isolated to the Superbowl—look at the millions of views which some better ads
get on YouTube.

Likewise, I definitely think for many people advertising is part of the
magazine experience. I certainly don't mind some of the nicer ads in The New
Yorker.

~~~
paavokoya
Yeah, but quality marketing is almost _always_ an isolated story/plot that has
nothing to do with any products sold and they throw a logo and name on at the
end.

Most of these "quality" commercials could swap out products and the exposure
would be the same. People don't want to be sold something, they just want to
absorb interesting content. That's what modern advertisement gets wrong.

~~~
morgante
> Yeah, but quality marketing is almost always an isolated story/plot that has
> nothing to do with any products sold and they throw a logo and name on at
> the end.

I think the Get a Mac campaign, for example, is both lots of fun and directly
connected to the product being sold.

------
chinathrow
"While you’re logged onto Facebook, for instance, the network can see
virtually every other website you visit. Even when you’re logged off, Facebook
knows much of your browsing: It’s alerted every time you load a page with a
“Like” or “share” button, or an advertisement sourced from its Atlas network."

If you want to enable sharing of your content on FB and other platforms easily
but you do not want to support the tracking madness, you might want to use
Shariff. It's setup to not send any tracking information to FB etc unless the
user wants to share something.

[https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff](https://github.com/heiseonline/shariff)

------
Silhouette
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this article is how much data from
_other sources_ Facebook apparently has access to now. How do these "data
brokers" have such detailed information about things like purchasing power and
spending habits to share with Facebook in the first place?

It seems to me that a lot of that must come from either retailers or financial
services, and in either case questions should be asked about how much people
understand about what data is being collected for purposes other than simply
making the intended purchase and what is done with that data.

------
et-al
Well now they can definitely compete with eHarmony's 29 points of
compatibility.

------
ddmma
I guess there must be a fine line between data with personal character like
social security number for instance and private information as your current
location.

Every coin had two faces, wonder how many faces bitcoin will have in the
future

------
sp527
Why did the submission title change? It was the article title before and I
didn't find that remotely controversial. Did FB PR get in touch or something?

------
astazangasta
I don't understand how people can build such a system. Yes, you. I don't
understand how people in the thread are debating the merits of advertisement,
as if that is what matters here. 1984 is here, and we all love Big Brother.

I mean this 100%: if you are participating in ad tech, collecting data on
grandmothers in large databases, quit your job now. You are doing harm.

~~~
umanwizard
You just repeated your conclusion over and over without giving any non-
emotional evidence that it's actually harmful.

I work for a company that makes a lot of money selling targeted ads. If I
thought it was harming people, I wouldn't work there. But you haven't
convinced me of that.

~~~
astazangasta
I'm not sure I intended to convince you, as opposed to merely expressing my
emotional response, via this short Internet comment, and I'm not sure I can.
I'm merely vocalizing my antipathy to a phenomenon I see around me every day,
and that I feel is causing active harm, but that frequently passes without
examination or moral outrage. I want you to know that I exist, that my
position exists, first, since you should at least acknowledge that I am here
in your own mind before you will consider my argument.

But in brief: while you are making a lot of money selling targeted ads by
enabling an apparatus that collates detailed information about the lives of
everyone on the planet, where they live, how they live, who they speak to,
other people are creating machines and systems of murder that increase the
power to kill and persecute based on this kind of surveillance.

The 20th century was replete with histories of people who used systems of
surveillance to terrorize, persecute and kill hundreds of millions of people.
The technology you are building is not only likely to be, but IS being used to
this purpose today.

I implore you to stop. What you're building is a system of power and control.
It is immensely dangerous. I don't imagine I will convince you through this,
or any comment I can make here, but maybe I can provoke a kernel of doubt.

------
JustUhThought
So I guess we've moved past the part of the conversatio where we ask if this
tracking is ok?

