<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>gambiting</author><text>&amp;gt;&amp;gt;Advertisements and marketing are immoral.&lt;p&gt;So if you are selling something it&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;literally&lt;/i&gt; immoral to tell other people about it? How do you think people will ever find your store or product that you make? Just randomly stumble upon it? I&amp;#x27;m genuinely curious.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tristor</author><text>&amp;gt; If you don&amp;#x27;t think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.&lt;p&gt;I do.  Ads are psychological manipulation at scale.  This well predates the Internet, even.  Advertisements and marketing are immoral.  As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads.  However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.&lt;p&gt;As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.</text></item><item><author>arciini</author><text>While I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it&amp;#x27;ll lead to them concentrating more power in the ad market.&lt;p&gt;Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved.&lt;p&gt;If you don&amp;#x27;t think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It&amp;#x27;s better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don&amp;#x27;t care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense.&lt;p&gt;The following only makes sense if you buy this argument:&lt;p&gt;The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it&amp;#x27;s not worth it.&lt;p&gt;Google&amp;#x27;s perspective is: &amp;quot;we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting&amp;quot;. The Chrome topics API and mathematical&amp;#x2F;statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies&amp;#x2F;data brokers.&lt;p&gt;That being said, I don&amp;#x27;t love the concentration of power (that&amp;#x27;s why the DOJ is going after them) - I&amp;#x27;d much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it</title><url>https://proton.me/blog/google-lobbying</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>endisneigh</author><text>Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not &amp;quot;psychological manipulation at scale?&amp;quot;</text><parent_chain><item><author>tristor</author><text>&amp;gt; If you don&amp;#x27;t think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.&lt;p&gt;I do.  Ads are psychological manipulation at scale.  This well predates the Internet, even.  Advertisements and marketing are immoral.  As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads.  However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.&lt;p&gt;As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.</text></item><item><author>arciini</author><text>While I agree Google is being a bit sly in lobbying against privacy legislation, I think they have a legitimate point, but also think that it&amp;#x27;ll lead to them concentrating more power in the ad market.&lt;p&gt;Google clearly believes that they can obfuscate identity by enough so that ads can be targeted while privacy can also be preserved.&lt;p&gt;If you don&amp;#x27;t think that all ads are bad (and Google argues that ads help make many of the sites we rely on economically feasible), then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. Many of my friends have actually found Instagram ads interesting enough to talk about them at dinners. It&amp;#x27;s better to have those ads rather than random banners for things that you don&amp;#x27;t care about. Google would definitely also argue that ad targeting improves the worth of the Internet and allows more sites to offer their services for free because they can make more from AdSense.&lt;p&gt;The following only makes sense if you buy this argument:&lt;p&gt;The data for ad targeting has been abused so often that for many (most?) consumers, it&amp;#x27;s not worth it.&lt;p&gt;Google&amp;#x27;s perspective is: &amp;quot;we can be a responsible steward of this data for this new age of privacy-conscious ad targeting&amp;quot;. The Chrome topics API and mathematical&amp;#x2F;statistical obfuscation are things that a blunt tool like the law may forbid. As far as arguments go, I think this is actually a plausible one. I do think Google has somewhat OK privacy controls compared to other large tech companies, and way better ones compared to bad acting small sites and ad companies&amp;#x2F;data brokers.&lt;p&gt;That being said, I don&amp;#x27;t love the concentration of power (that&amp;#x27;s why the DOJ is going after them) - I&amp;#x27;d much rather there be some decentralized way to ensure privacy but still allow useful ads, but we get what we get.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it</title><url>https://proton.me/blog/google-lobbying</url></story>