I used to sometimes. When there was a simple, clean ad for something I was interested in, I would click through.
Mind you, this was in an era when the internet amounted to strings and cans because I’m a fucking dinosaur. Since then, ads first went obnoxious and loud, then they got plastered everywhere, then they started being invasive.
Fuck ads at this point. There’s nothing good in them for us at all.
but but but but you’d get something good for it! You would never have missed it, but maybe you just didn’t know you wanted it? Come on, I’m sure consuming shit that will make you happy twice for two minutes each (once when clicking buy, once when getting and opening the package) will fill that hole in your soul! Spending money on stuff you don’t actually need is good!
A lot of times people will visit a website for a product they’re interested in and may not immediately pull the trigger. When they see it later 3-4 more times, the chances of conversion are way higher.
Google probably doesn’t really know if you purchased the product, and may not care, as you may want to purchase another.
I’m sure it’s like gambling and microtransactions where the vast majority of income is derived from a small minority of people who aren’t bothered by the onslaught of ads shoved down their throats.
Only did it once. The Rest EverCool comforter ad I kept seeing. Looked up a bunch of reviews and as someone who is a very hot sleeper. I can’t recommend it enough. It’s the softest coolest blanket I’ve ever felt. Every square inch is as cool as the other side of the pillow.
Upvoted for saying the phrase “as cool as the other side of the pillow”. Heard that once when someone was talking about a sports commentator and haven’t forgotten it in probably 35 years at least.
ESPN’s Stuart Scott used this as his catchphrase starting in the mid-'90s, so not quite 35 years (but damn close). Like all ESPN catchphrases, it was clever and funny the first time, not so much the next 5000 times.
I’m not sure this applies to stuff like ads. Like, if you always prioritize foss and ethically sourced products, ads can’t really persuade you to buy certain things. And you make those decisions by doing research and buying local, or even better, making as much stuff as you can yourself.
Or you could just hate shopping. I hate it all, online, in store. I end up doing way too much research and it’s too mentally taxing. I buy a phone like once every 7 years because the stress of just shopping for it is annoying, not to mention the actual process of switching.
I really need to buy clothes again… but that’s like my least favorite thing to shop for…
Oh, I totally get you! I hate shopping as well, even though it’s a necessity. In fact, I dislike it so much that I’m actually learning to make my own clothes. I realise this isn’t for everyone and that not everybody has the time, but I’m sure there’s stuff that you can do on your own that you may actually enjoy!
That’s cool! I am guessing you’re female? Women’s clothes seems to be easier to make in my experience. Making a pair of men’s pants was a challenge, the materials were expensive and they didn’t even come out that great, and I almost never wear them.
A sundress is like 10x easier to sew than a pair of pants.
Targeted ads are designed to make you feel inadequate or incomplete. Even if it doesn’t convince you to buy the product advertised, it can still shift your expectations and world-view just by normalizing a certain type of consumption (or attitude, or media, ect).
Just because you don’t spend money, doesn’t mean ads aren’t still subtly manipulating your expectations.
It is a trillion dollar a year industry for a reason.
It also just lets you know the product exists or reminds you of it while strengthening certain associations in your brain. I know I can’t think of VPNs without thinking of NordVPN and if I were to decide I want one, I don’t think there would be a chance it didn’t at least occur to me to maybe look into
And you almost certainly leave thinking you aren’t being careful enough with your privacy and you should look into getting a VPN. Works the same with any ad, or even a promoted social media post. “You’ll like this thing because of how we know you think of yourself.”
It’s pernicious and erodes everyone’s ability to be happy and content, no matter how resistant you think you are to advertisements.
I don’t think I’ve ever willingly clicked on an ad in my entire life
Same here and I’ve certainly never purchased anything through an ad. You’d think there’d be some advantage for advertising networks to identify people (there are dozens of us!) who never click on ads and refrain from serving any to them - and use this as a selling point for ad buyers so that their expenditures are not wasted.
Just because you don’t click on an ad doesn’t mean it didn’t work though. If you see an ad for Coke you may not click on it to order a case of Coke online right away, but when you go out to lunch maybe you’ll fill your cup with Coke.
I mention food ads because I feel they are particularly effective for this type of behavior. You don’t need to click on a food ad, but I know I’ve had a craving for a certain restaurant or food from seeing it mentioned online (whether an ad or just a comment/post) and then gone to get that food for dinner.
Of course, this type of ad result is very difficult to track.
Basically the only times I click on ads is when I’m searching for something and the search engine I’m using has paid ads for the thing I’m searching for at the top.
Beyond that I can’t think of any times I’ve ever clicked on an ad intentionally.
it’s not about your clicks, it’s to influence you, it can influence people in multiple degree, maybe next type when you go buy something think about it
Used to think otherwise, that I was immune to the phenomenon that you’re describing. But then the other day I realised my shoes were hurting my feet. I was seriously considering buying shoe inserts (if that’s their English name), even had the brand in mind, until I realised what was happening.
I’ve seen ads for this brand on tv like a decade ago. Before that, I honestly had no clue such things existed, I’d seen them in a store like, twice. Never seen anything related to them ever since. Literally forgot about them until I felt the slightest urge to buy them. I was really taken aback when I realised what had happened in my “advertising-immune” mind
Which is literally kept alive by Google. They have a monopoly, stop deluding yourself intot hinking there are any good guys (except maybe the Librewolf, Mullvad, and Tor devs)
Librewolf is based on FF, you know right? Mozilla does receive Google funding (that’s why their default search engine is Google), but adopting FF and derivatives is also about Chromium not being the single dominant engine: that would only strengthen Google’s monopoly.
As long as we don’t use Chromium-based browsers (and Google services) we’re doing good against Google’s monopoly already.
While I agree, most people fail to see the bigger picture. They use Firefox to prevent Chromium from having a monopoly for browser features, but what they fail to see is that in most cases, Google already has full control. If Chromium browsers get a feature, Firefox will inevitably implement it in Gecko and the browser so that users don’t say things like “Firefox sucks”. Firefox does not suck, Google and their monopolistic practices suck. Now it does provide some practical benefit, for example when Google decides to introduce a more restricted version of a pre existing feature, Firefox can opt to keep on using tje less restricted version as well. The most prominent example of this is the whole Manifest v3 mess. But with something like Web Environment Integrity (or as many, myself included, call it, DRM for the Web), Firefox will inevitably adopt it after Google does, so as to not have users upset and leaving.
I agree with what’s gonna happen. At the same time, I guess Mozilla won’t make it hard for “Google’s web DRM” to be either toggled off via user config, or sandboxed from user data. They have interest in catering to people fed up with Google’s constant privacy invasions, so I’m currently waiting to see their next actions with moderate confidence and a healthy dose of skepticism as well.
In IT’s defense, there are a lot of REALLY stupid people. Plus given the added cost of developing internal apps that work for both, I can understand why corporations would choose to lock you into Chromium. I don’t like it, and I wish there was more trust in the end user, but I do get it.
The kind that needs to maintain their users’ access to lazy shitty vendors who only develop their sites for the browser with the largest market share.
Half the vendors we use webapps/websites from jumped to Chrome when IE was dying, the other held on to IE kicking and screaming until forced out, then jumped to Chrome. They aren’t going to spend the resources to ensure cross compatability unless they have significant financial incentive to, and they don’t. And IT isn’t going to tell the business side to forget about getting work done until they find a better vendor just because IT wants to make a stand on browser vendors.
I never understood what is so problematic about anonymized telemetry, especially for a open-source product.
It provides a really valuable feedback for developers regarding feature usage, performance and error logs – you get the product for free so give something back.
While it is mostly helpful, I still do it. To be honest, I would have been alright with it if it was a little more relaxed. What I mean by that is I’m okay with opt out, as long as it’s a product I trust, and I would say I do trust Firefox as a project (Not too sure about the Corporation, the Foundation is fine). What I’m not fine with is the “Data will be deleted within 30 days”. What if someone does not want to give that data in the first place, huh? I’m okay with it, because it’s Firefox, but many people arent, so it’s a matter principle for the people that aren’t. So if someone didn’t want any telemetry collected on them, that telemetry has not only been collected, but is now stored on Mozilla servers for 30 days, which means they can use it for analytics, whether you like it or not. Again, I don’t care, because it’s Firefox, but for the people that do, at the very least, don’t give me or them or anyone else fhat “We will delete within 30 days” thing. Automate it and do it now.
Firefox collects diagnostics and some usage data, not browsing history, Google collects absolutely anything and everything.
Their primary, nor secondary, source of revenue is not selling your data. You can also disable it entirely pretty easily. You cannot do that in Chrome.
Uh. Google is an advertising agency. Their entire business model is collecting data. Chrome is made by Google, ergo the ad company that Chrome uses is Google because Chrome is Google.
They collect everything
Nowhere does it say they collect browsing history. There are multiple places across their site where they explicitly say they do not.
That’s the sound of someone who realizes they forgot what conversation they were having and refused to admit it. That’s okay, it happens to the best of us
Idk why the heck you just got downvoted into oblivion for pointing out the irony in google calling this a “privacy feature.” Good old reddit moment it seems.
lol it’s no worries. actually I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
I don't particularly care about your or his internet spats or attempt to control the all important narrative on lemmy. You are the one giving him rent free space in your brain and on your keyboard though.
See WarmSoda!? This is why I shouldn’t have stopped. People ask this question, your advice was wrong! I’m going to continue what I was doing before you called me stupid.
edit: The link points to lemmy.world which is intermittently getting DDOS’ed.
Please ignore my negative initial vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
This is why I use Linux at home, along with TOR and a VPN. I’m not doing anything other than looking up woodworking and camping stuff, but fuck all ya’ll for being nosy.
A VPN just makes it look like you’re somewhere else, but it doesn’t really add any amount of anonymity. You’ll still get tracked around the Internet like you normally would, but sites will just think you’re somewhere else.
Tor is an anonymizing network, so your traffic gets mixed with a bunch of other people’s traffic so websites get really confused about where you are. It’s almost impossible to track someone using Tor because Tor will change how your packets are routed from request to request.
So if you just want to get access to different Netflix shows, a VPN is probably what you want. If you want to truly be anonymous, you need Tor. Just know that anonymity through Tor comes at a price, a lot of sites block Tor traffic, and performance is nothing to write home about because your traffic is routed through a bunch of other people’s machines.
midwest.social
Hot