Within 5 seconds, I went from being disturbed by the headline, to laughing at this. Social media news ellicit this contrast of (evil) possibilities and frustrating injustice.
It says you have to pick groups of 20 as your target advertising audience, but you can select 19 men and 1 woman and say the as should only be shown to women to effectively target a single individual.
I don't know if it's illegal or not but this is the financial building block of almost all modern IT companies. Brainwashing people as a service. Did you miss out on this? Is it really that different when you can do it with $29 on one person than with $290 on 100 persons or $100k on a million?
> Is it really that different when you can do it with $29 on one person than with $290 on 100 persons or $100k on a million?
Yes.
It would take tons of time to protect individuals from deceptive advertising. The bigger the group and the more public the ad the easier it is to protect the public.
Also, for $29 someone could bombard you with content about suicide or other dark topics and just be relentless with negativity.
It's so much different than showing an ad to 100 women ages 30-45 in Chicago.
Is pushing anxiety, inadequacy, incompleteness and consumerism into the minds of 100 women ages 30-45 in Chicago more justifiable than if it were "suicide or other dark topics."
I think we've defined "acceptable" advertising by working backward from what people find profitable to advertise about. We can chip at the edges here and there (not these products, forced demographic boundaries (or lack thereof)) but the overwhelming thrust isn't effected. It's a lie we tell ourselves because the alternative is to admit we're powerless. Powerless to control the content of ads, and powerless to identify and repel the forces ads wants to effect on our psyche.
Correct, neither is good, but IMO individual targeting is worse because the potential for accountability is less. It requires every individual to complain.
In group targeting, only a few in the group need to know something is wrong and they can complain and save the group from further inappropriate advertising.
You are NOT powerless. Mute the TV, close the Facebook or YouTube video. At minimum, turn away. Learn to ignore the ad areas, or use an ad blocker. Resist.
There's an even easier crazy loophole called a 'postcard' that goes right directly to the person, in physical form even, sending your message direct to them!
There was a blog post a few years ago where a guy to get back at a prank from his room mate used target facebook ads to hit just him to make him feel crazy[0]. Also facebook has openly hijacked every political system on the planet, made that Fyre festival happen, and have been spewing data at near anonymous developer accounts for a decade. I think maybe this is a good thing that this company is being open about it. If this was illegal then all the "legit" people that have been abusing it would have something to worry about and many of them are very rich. I'm not sure the company using the services offered in the way they are designed is the real villain.
>It turns out the Reddit CEO had a public Facebook profile, so I could go there to see details about him. Where he lived. What he was interested in. I took that info to the Facebook platform to help narrow down the campaign. But I didn’t want everyone to click on it, just one person. So I custom tailored the ad to directly target the one person I wanted to read it.
>“Steve: Reddit needs recommendations”
>The ad reached 197 people. 4 People clicked on it. One of them was the CEO of Reddit. I spent a total of $10.62.
>Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, saw my ad, clicked on it, read (probably skimmed) my article, and liked it well enough to send a note to Reddit HR to contact me about a position.
I don't think it has much to do with Facebook. The way it works (from their website) is that the target has to be sent a link to click on, which opens a page that places a cookie on their browser and immediately forwards them to a generic article. Presumably they'll then be targeted by major ad networks based on this cookie.
There's a tort called "Intrusion of Solitude" that has been applied to online privacy but it would still be difficult here because you have to prove mental anguish or suffering. I suppose if you were "brainwashed" into proposing and then ended up divorcing the mental anguish wouldn't be terribly difficult to prove. If you were "brainwashed" into buy a puppy on the other hand... you're probably out of luck.
I would imagine it has to run afoul of at least one state's wiretapping laws though.
It helps if you can forget you did it maybe? I think it would still work though. Like Neuro Linguistic Programming. The repetition would most likely sink in if you're an active Fb user. If you gave yourself a way to deny that you put it into action it might be more effective. I'd be interested to double blind that honestly. Lol. I have a few hundred bucks and am interested in making a medium.com post.
I wonder if this would work on a VC? Say you've got an idea and you're trying to raise money from a Venture firm. Target the firms GPs with info that your business is trying to solve and then when you pitch them, they'll love your idea.
It has been a trend at startup weekends and accelerators since ~2014; Target your investors, coaches, and class to at least get them to perceive your brand as bigger than it is and use your app -- or get their children, friends to be aware of the brand.
"Burn Money was a simple, free app that performed one function very well. You make an in-app purchase between $1 and $100 in real money, then watch as that amount in U.S. currency goes up in flames on your screen. The app recorded a video of the virtual conflagration that you could post on social media, and emailed you a “certificate” confirming you spent up to $100 for absolutely nothing."
40 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadThe practice is called "sniping".
Yes.
It would take tons of time to protect individuals from deceptive advertising. The bigger the group and the more public the ad the easier it is to protect the public.
Also, for $29 someone could bombard you with content about suicide or other dark topics and just be relentless with negativity.
It's so much different than showing an ad to 100 women ages 30-45 in Chicago.
I think we've defined "acceptable" advertising by working backward from what people find profitable to advertise about. We can chip at the edges here and there (not these products, forced demographic boundaries (or lack thereof)) but the overwhelming thrust isn't effected. It's a lie we tell ourselves because the alternative is to admit we're powerless. Powerless to control the content of ads, and powerless to identify and repel the forces ads wants to effect on our psyche.
In group targeting, only a few in the group need to know something is wrong and they can complain and save the group from further inappropriate advertising.
[0] https://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking...
http://twicsy-blog.tumblr.com/post/174063770074/how-i-target...
>It turns out the Reddit CEO had a public Facebook profile, so I could go there to see details about him. Where he lived. What he was interested in. I took that info to the Facebook platform to help narrow down the campaign. But I didn’t want everyone to click on it, just one person. So I custom tailored the ad to directly target the one person I wanted to read it.
>“Steve: Reddit needs recommendations”
>The ad reached 197 people. 4 People clicked on it. One of them was the CEO of Reddit. I spent a total of $10.62.
>Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, saw my ad, clicked on it, read (probably skimmed) my article, and liked it well enough to send a note to Reddit HR to contact me about a position.
I would imagine it has to run afoul of at least one state's wiretapping laws though.
This theme is repeated throughout the article but is missing data on actual behavioral change.
It has been a trend at startup weekends and accelerators since ~2014; Target your investors, coaches, and class to at least get them to perceive your brand as bigger than it is and use your app -- or get their children, friends to be aware of the brand.
That said, over and above the ethical issues, what man really wants a wife they have to nag for sex? I'll take solitude.
Message: Play slots! Target: Existing slot players
Exposure to articles such as:
"Woman hits $1.6 million slot jackpot at Vegas airport Launch your micro-targeted content campaign today"
[1] https://www.thespinner.net/
"Burn Money was a simple, free app that performed one function very well. You make an in-app purchase between $1 and $100 in real money, then watch as that amount in U.S. currency goes up in flames on your screen. The app recorded a video of the virtual conflagration that you could post on social media, and emailed you a “certificate” confirming you spent up to $100 for absolutely nothing."