When I read articles like these, it always makes me sad to see the amount of incredibly complex technologies dedicated to advertising. I hate to be that guy but I'm sure these resources could have a better usage.
It gets interesting when you think of it in relation to something like our space program (which was largely a war-driven effort) or even the internet itself. I'm sure someone somewhere said "wow, instead of all these eggheads working on better battlefield communications, we should really put those dollars to something meaningful.
Not trying to be snide, but one can rarely predict where something like say...complex ad tech...might lead future technological innovations. It certainly has helped fuel a large tech industry.
Advertising currently provides most of the revenue for many Internet sites. Until another major revenue source comes along a significant effort will still be put towards optimizing advertising.
Yeah I know... It's even worse than that actually, since advertising is not a zero sum game (if you have two companies with 50% market share, they will get less compared to a company with all the market), any alternative would just decrease significantly the value of advertising and therefore, no alternative can emerge.
That is why there is no option to pay for Google services instead of the tracking. I don't think there is any solution to this, unless the share of AdBlock users would reach a tremendous level.
Thats interesting, but it just seems like mining additional money out of people, they still get to keep all the data even if they are not displaying the advertising.
Do these people have the editorial freedom to criticise their major advertisers? Or potential advertisers?
Is their creativity, in fact, funnelled consciously or unconsciously into selling over-priced shit to people who don't need it?
Would there be more or less creativity in the world if it wasn't focussed on making a few hand-picked, advertiser-friendly people into elite-level, rich straight-white-men?
I don't think global creativity goes hand-in-hand with advertising. In my opinion, advertising just sucks the soul out of it. So, I disagree back.
> Do these people have the editorial freedom to criticise (sic) their major advertisers? Or potential advertisers?
That's actually one of the (uncelebrated) benefits of the exchange landscape. Because advertisers and publishers are so removed from each other, there's 0 risk of editorial freedom being jeopardized.
Honestly, I'm tired of the trite advertising hatred on HN. Advertising is basically the only thing making culture and creative work (from journalism to ballet) available to the general public. A world without advertising would be a much darker one, with entertainment only accessible to the wealthy few who can directly commission creativity.
Advertisers also tend to allow a lot more creative freedom than patrons.
