Naive writer. "personalized ads" doesn't mean he will see ads he likes. It means advertisers will pay to show ads to him because of his age, income or behavior, and they can be ads he doesn't like.
recursive
What's the difference? Ads are valuable to advertisers for a number of factors, including the estimated likelihood that the targeted user will pay money for $PRODUCT.
An increase in relevance isn't exactly the same thing as an increase in favor, but it's hard to believe they're not correlated.
izacus
Let me show you in practical terms - I've searched for some neat cases for a Pixel 9 Pro (for a family member). I'm now receiving targeted ads for phone cases on Instagram on my Galaxy S25.
- Ads I'd like: More cute cases for either P9Pro or a Galaxy S25 I'm watching the ads on.
- Ads the company is pushing: iPhone-only cases which I can't use anywhere.
Quite staggering the incompetence of targeting those :)
recursive
Sounds like the targeting is just not specific enough yet.
izacus
I'd hope "show cases for android phones on an android phone" to be something rockstar engineers at ad companies figure out rather easily.
rightbyte
"Ads I like" would be like informative commercials about workshop tools, like how they were in the 70s.
Not emotion focused ads, which is what The Man wants me to see to make me buy his stuff.
I don't watch ads but if I did I would prefer a "what, how, price" setup.
chneu
Ads you like vs things you'll actually buy are two very different things.
Samsung can't make money off me buying vintage tools or computer parts. I'd love to see those ads.
But Samsung can hit me with new washing machine ads, or ads for big businesses pushed thru their galaxy store.
hammock
There is little difference if we are talking cost per click. But many ads are still sold on cost per view
pyrale
Advertising is not limited to companies trying to sell an innocuous product.
kulahan
The goal of any advertising service is to match people with relevant ads, and collecting data is a major part of how you do that. That’s what the author is referring to.
mjevans
Or they could base it on the content that's next to the ad.
Terretta
NYT among others found ads placed with content outperformed ads attempting to target users. Also avoided awkwardly advertising things that shouldn't be advertised alongside certain content.
throwaway48476
This makes journalism on controversial subjects unprofitable. Who would want to do a content based ad on Israel/Gaza?
> The goal of any advertising service is to match people with relevant ads
The goal of any advertising service is fully automated population-scale digital pimping, with an extremely sophisticated matchmaking service (backed by all that data) as a value-add.
They put your ass on the RTB street to turn tricks. You get mindfucked by--and maybe catch some viruses from--any John who wants to take a crack at you. In return, you get this nice cheap TV/Youtube/Gmail/article.
Bitch better have my money!
m463
I'm talking about his conclusions from the "To be honest" paragraph.
People are not matched with "relevant ads" due to their interests, it is due to the advertisers interest in your demographics.
(also, the writer might be hedging his bets with ads/advertisers on his page)
kulahan
Advertisers are only interested in the demographic of “might buy my stuff”, which is only people who can potentially be interested in your product.
I dislike this game where we mince words like it changes the fundamental argument. The two crowds want to be linked up in a way that transfers money most happily from consumers to producers. Unhappy purchases are likely to result in returns. Of course, if one advertiser can keep your returns below a certain rate (or won’t cause them to explode), that’s more ideal, so naturally the market will select for companies that do this unless they have some other incredible metrics outweighing that.
Really the only time this isn’t true is with companies designed around maximal waste - products are often too cheap to bother returning and are only meant to last a use or two anyways.
The general public has little concept how much personal information ISPs, TV makers, car companies, websites (cross-site tracking), and shady mobile apps are collecting and selling. Google and Apple look like saints by comparison.
Have you ever wondered why Roku TVs are so cheap? Check the default privacy settings. They fingerprint every single thing that displays on the TV and phone home. Here's an engineer right here on HN talking about it. https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=21012268
Is there an opening to have appliances that lack connectivity as a selling feature?
hammock
What data does my dishwasher have that someone would buy?
chneu
Most of the privacy issues with smart appliances has to do with the apps that you're required to use to access the smart features.
The cell phone apps harvest data. Not so much on the actual appliance. There are also issues with the apps having malware bundled in them. They're just bad apps, generally.
The appliances do get hacked though. It's not unusual for IoT devices to be used in ddos attacks.
Really, this is just a good reason that everyone should be using, at least, router level DNS filtering to disable a lot of this stuff. One can go a lot further but that's a good start.
BLKNSLVR
I'm the linked article it says that specific features of the dishwasher require an app to run. Apps can generally find out other information about you and your habits from your phone.
It's gross.
baby_souffle
Just by virtue of purchasing that model, I can assume a few things about your finances.
How often you use it and which cycles you use it for let me infer a few other things about other people in the house.
I can either use those to bolster confidence in a narrower profile or I can just add those data points to the raw profile and charge marketers more for either the higher confidence profile or the profile with more data points.
maximus-decimus
You really have to wonder if they put microphones/cameras in those to spy on you.
hammock
A camera on the INSIDE that varies the wash time based on observed soil level and stops the cycle once it sees everything is clean, now there’s an idea…
add-sub-mul-div
Roku's video ad experiment is the thing that got me to finally set up AdGuard. Now every one of my devices is improved. Thanks Roku?
more_corn
In late stage capitalist America, TV watches you!!!
An increase in relevance isn't exactly the same thing as an increase in favor, but it's hard to believe they're not correlated.
- Ads I'd like: More cute cases for either P9Pro or a Galaxy S25 I'm watching the ads on.
- Ads the company is pushing: iPhone-only cases which I can't use anywhere.
Quite staggering the incompetence of targeting those :)
Not emotion focused ads, which is what The Man wants me to see to make me buy his stuff.
I don't watch ads but if I did I would prefer a "what, how, price" setup.
Samsung can't make money off me buying vintage tools or computer parts. I'd love to see those ads.
But Samsung can hit me with new washing machine ads, or ads for big businesses pushed thru their galaxy store.
The goal of any advertising service is fully automated population-scale digital pimping, with an extremely sophisticated matchmaking service (backed by all that data) as a value-add.
They put your ass on the RTB street to turn tricks. You get mindfucked by--and maybe catch some viruses from--any John who wants to take a crack at you. In return, you get this nice cheap TV/Youtube/Gmail/article.
Bitch better have my money!
People are not matched with "relevant ads" due to their interests, it is due to the advertisers interest in your demographics.
(also, the writer might be hedging his bets with ads/advertisers on his page)
I dislike this game where we mince words like it changes the fundamental argument. The two crowds want to be linked up in a way that transfers money most happily from consumers to producers. Unhappy purchases are likely to result in returns. Of course, if one advertiser can keep your returns below a certain rate (or won’t cause them to explode), that’s more ideal, so naturally the market will select for companies that do this unless they have some other incredible metrics outweighing that.
Really the only time this isn’t true is with companies designed around maximal waste - products are often too cheap to bother returning and are only meant to last a use or two anyways.
Have you ever wondered why Roku TVs are so cheap? Check the default privacy settings. They fingerprint every single thing that displays on the TV and phone home. Here's an engineer right here on HN talking about it. https://www.hackerneue.com/item?id=21012268
Also, there are ultrasonic beacons and other such signals at any reasonably busy public place and in many places you wouldn't expect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-device_tracking
Even dishwashers: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/i-wont-connect-my-dis...
Is there an opening to have appliances that lack connectivity as a selling feature?
The cell phone apps harvest data. Not so much on the actual appliance. There are also issues with the apps having malware bundled in them. They're just bad apps, generally.
The appliances do get hacked though. It's not unusual for IoT devices to be used in ddos attacks.
Really, this is just a good reason that everyone should be using, at least, router level DNS filtering to disable a lot of this stuff. One can go a lot further but that's a good start.
It's gross.
How often you use it and which cycles you use it for let me infer a few other things about other people in the house.
I can either use those to bolster confidence in a narrower profile or I can just add those data points to the raw profile and charge marketers more for either the higher confidence profile or the profile with more data points.