|
Lote posted:
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
I'm doing my part: I replaced uBlock Origin in my browsers with AdNauseum, which in addition to blocking ads and javascript bitcoin miners, basically generates fake clicks on any ads it comes across. Hey, Google banned it from their Chrome extension store, and those Pale Moon wackos banned it from their otherwise MAH FREEDOMS drm-hating lovely knockoff browser, so it must be doing something right! Now if only they'd fix it so it'd work on Firefox on Android again. It doesn't actually do much clicking on my desktop thanks to my hosts file and uMatrix blocking the ads from loading in the first place, but it works great while reading news articles on my phone and fake clicking on every single lovely outbrain link they always have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Yea, what Lote said. It either proves that internet advertising doesn't work at all, or that companies are about to get very specific on what sites they advertise on. Either way, that means the market for internet ads is going to fall apart. It's way overdue really. If I had to guess, it’d need to be the latter, right? People who use the Internet almost never visit only one site, and even if they did it’d overwhelmingly be the really popular stuff like Facebook. Replicating the same ad over multiple networks for a single user is going to catch people who didn’t notice the ad at first, and I don’t thing anyone with a shred of sense would say eyeballs on the ad is more important than clicks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:That poor intern. He probably made 6 figgies
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
quote:Tesla Delays Model 3 Goals After Record Cash Burn https://twitter.com/Recode/status/925821010913452033 shrike82 fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
I mean these are the open secrets of internet advertising, known to anyone who has ever worked around it: 1. All the metrics are inflated by like a factor of 50 due to botting, meaning if you paying for traffic you're only ever getting a fraction of what you pay for. 2. Cost-per-conversion is usually not worth it for the vast majority of industries, the exception being very low competition keywords that are cheap and certain types of enterprise and high-ticket sales where the lifetime value of a customer is enough to justify it. 3. Targeting data is generally useless, social data is the most useless of all. The exceptions are re-targeting based on relatively explicit buy signals like cart abandons and using targeting data as a blacklist to intentionally limit your scope so as to drive costs down. 4. Video metrics are just outright lies that have been intentionally stated in such a way as to grift money from clueless agencies who make specious comparisons to TV buys. 5. You might as well display your banner ad on the inside of a bum's rear end in a top hat, because it will get more attention there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:I mean these are the open secrets of internet advertising, known to anyone who has ever worked around it: Aren't all marketing concepts and strategies still tied to the pre-internet idea that ad saturation means that as you go about life the sheer deluge of ads on signs, TV, and in physical magazines eventually works because you simply see so many you starting internalizing the brands and ads? The internet works nothing like that and with all the ad blocking software as well as a general disregard for internet ads as taking up window space and ignored. Rather then the mid sized windows on the sides of webpages and articles it'd be better for a plain corporate logo that justs says "BUY OUR PRODUCT!" with the logo large enough to take up the entire ad space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Google just had a blockbuster quarter on increased ad sales so I suspect you'll see lovely internet ad companies on the periphery that suffer rather than "core" companies like Google or Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Paccar must be loving laughing their god damned asses off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Aren't all marketing concepts and strategies still tied to the pre-internet idea that ad saturation means that as you go about life the sheer deluge of ads on signs, TV, and in physical magazines eventually works because you simply see so many you starting internalizing the brands and ads? Er, it's not like TV/radio/billboard/magazine ads worked all that well either. TV/radio advertising especially is very close to as much of a lie as internet advertising is, and most billboards that aren't just advertising "hey, our restaurant's next exit, you hungry?" are very hard to keep track of working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kumailn/status/925829691776237568
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I'm doing my part: I replaced uBlock Origin in my browsers with AdNauseum, which in addition to blocking ads and javascript bitcoin miners, basically generates fake clicks on any ads it comes across. Hey, Google banned it from their Chrome extension store, and those Pale Moon wackos banned it from their otherwise MAH FREEDOMS drm-hating lovely knockoff browser, so it must be doing something right! Are you okay?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:He probably made 6 figgies No way. They would have dumped that on whoever runs their programmatic advertising which appears to be Google so my assumption is some poor son of a bitch in India had to click it for days or get fired. It's also not as much of a thing as some are touting; I've never worked on a piece of a business whose retargeting had that many websites in it, or even more than 10,000. The article is less "a wakeup for advertising" and more "JP Morgan took their programmatic in house and found out months later nobody knew a goddamn thing about how it works"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Literally the plot of Real Genius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Literally the plot of Real Genius. I went back and watched that recently, was surprised that the 80s movie had a plot about making GBS threads on the military industrial complex and turning down monetary profit to adhere to a personal code. Especially since at that time, Silicon Valley was already pretty much sharing a circulatory system with the defense industry. Was it pure Hollywood, or was that actually the sort of personal redemption myth the techies told themselves once upon a time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Wait, "tech that is scary, like altering video"? Did this person fall through a time portal from 1982?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Wait, "tech that is scary, like altering video"? Did this person fall through a time portal from 1982? You should @ him about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
I think being able to believably alter an audio or video recording such that you can make them say anything in their own voice without sounding edited (already almost doable) or puppet them to do something in the video they did not, like some kind of real footage source filmmaker (really crude versions of this exist)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I'm doing my part: I replaced uBlock Origin in my browsers with AdNauseum, which in addition to blocking ads and javascript bitcoin miners, basically generates fake clicks on any ads it comes across. Hey, Google banned it from their Chrome extension store, and those Pale Moon wackos banned it from their otherwise MAH FREEDOMS drm-hating lovely knockoff browser, so it must be doing something right!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:I think being able to believably alter an audio or video recording such that you can make them say anything in their own voice without sounding edited (already almost doable) or puppet them to do something in the video they did not, like some kind of real footage source filmmaker (really crude versions of this exist) We had cgi reconstruction of dead actors in TV commercials like 20 years ago. Remember, Fred Astaire with some vacuum brand, where they modified one of his famous dance numbers with some of his other ones to end up with him dancing with the vacuum cleaner? This was already being done before 1999. Similar techniques have been used in ads ever since, and increasingly in movies. Faking voice has long been possible if time intensive for any major figure who's said a lot on tape. And the union of that has been accessible with corporate budgets for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
"believably"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:"believably" Yes those things have been believable for decades. Usually all you'd want for nefarious purposes is a few seconds of a different action or speech, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
lol fishmech moving the goal posts to "a few seconds". why don't you post a clip of CGI from the 90s so we can see how believable it is. you're the kind of guy that goes "deep learning isn't anything new because we've had perceptrons in the 60s"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol fishmech moving the goal posts to "a few seconds". why don't you post a clip of CGI from the 90s so we can see how believable it is. Deep learning isn't anything new. It's the promise of 80s ai with a new name. Google Fred Astaire vacuum commercial or something like that, I don't remember the brand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
the paradigm of 80s AI was actually symbolic expert systems is this an Economist situation where fishmech pedantry doesn't work when you actually deal in the field he talks about  YouTube of Fred Astaire CGI ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QASUovFOquw shrike82 fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:the paradigm of 80s AI was actually symbolic expert systems No, the paradigm was a bunch of lies where "we'll just put ai on it" was the panacea. Now they say the same thing for deep learning (Google pixel event particularly bad for this). Yep see looks perfectly normal in the context of the ad where he's doing wacky poo poo like walking the ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I'm doing my part: I replaced uBlock Origin in my browsers with AdNauseum, which in addition to blocking ads and javascript bitcoin miners, basically generates fake clicks on any ads it comes across. Hey, Google banned it from their Chrome extension store, and those Pale Moon wackos banned it from their otherwise MAH FREEDOMS drm-hating lovely knockoff browser, so it must be doing something right! Ad Nauseum is great, it's the equilibrium strategy to protect your privacy in a world of content surveillance. A firehose of bullshit fucks up a machine learning network more than a small but still high signal trickle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Google just had a blockbuster quarter on increased ad sales so I suspect you'll see lovely internet ad companies on the periphery that suffer rather than "core" companies like Google or Facebook. The point isn't that people aren't buying a lot of ads; it's that the ads probably aren't as impactful as marketing departments believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:The point isn't that people aren't buying a lot of ads; it's that the ads probably aren't as impactful as marketing departments believe. "Adtech" is a process of screwing over everyone involved. The advertisers buy ads and get bot clicks, the publishers sell ad space and don't even get bot clicks, the users get surveillance and malware. The only beneficiary is the adtech merchant. The thing they're selling is the fallacy that if only you had more data you'd be much more efficient; at which point Goodhart's Law takes over entirely. I don't have a solution that doesn't involve torches, pitchforks and guillotines, but otoh that's increasingly tempting anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Ad Nauseum is great, it's the equilibrium strategy to protect your privacy in a world of content surveillance. A firehose of bullshit fucks up a machine learning network more than a small but still high signal trickle. It is highly unlikely that it's actually "protecting your privacy" though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
There is a weird thing in most advertising where both the seller in-a-position-to-know-whether-the-ads-work and the buyer in-a-position-to-know-whether-the-ads-work have salaries that depend on the ads working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:There is a weird thing in most advertising where both the seller in-a-position-to-know-whether-the-ads-work and the buyer in-a-position-to-know-whether-the-ads-work have salaries that depend on the ads
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Yes, "depend on the ads seeming to work" would have been more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Consider how Satellite and Cable TV operators have more and more information on what channels are getting watched at exactly how much time for the Americans who use their services (which the vast majority of the viewing public, especially since analog cable that required either no cable box at all, or only a very simple one for decryption, has been almost entirely phased out). But advertisers often don't consider that data at all, or consider it a lower level of reliability than Nielsen diaries and auto-monitoring of selected "random" households. Occasionally they do deign to look at the amount of DVR watches of a show within the same week or whatever, but they entirely discount a vast amount of data on whether a given ad could reasonably have been seen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It is highly unlikely that it's actually "protecting your privacy" though. Correct, they only need to find you in the data point they're looking for. Not hitting the ad server and thus not even having a record is far better at hiding you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Consider how Satellite and Cable TV operators have more and more information on what channels are getting watched at exactly how much time for the Americans who use their services (which the vast majority of the viewing public, especially since analog cable that required either no cable box at all, or only a very simple one for decryption, has been almost entirely phased out). But advertisers often don't consider that data at all, or consider it a lower level of reliability than Nielsen diaries and auto-monitoring of selected "random" households. Occasionally they do deign to look at the amount of DVR watches of a show within the same week or whatever, but they entirely discount a vast amount of data on whether a given ad could reasonably have been seen. Lotta this is structural. The music industry is a pathological shithole, but the only good music on the blockchain white paper ever written [PDF] (and it's got technical defects, but is spot-on about music industry psychology) discusses how the author's metrics firm, Semetric, tried to give record companies data from torrenting because it was an incredibly good predictor of a hit - but the record labels refused it because they didn't want to be seen to be endorsing BitTorrent in any way, including (I presume) internally to their own bosses: quote:When the social media data we were gathering and analysing at Semetric, a big data analytics company focussed on the entertainment industry, was beginning to attract the interest of the major labels, they made it very clear that they loved what we were doing overall, but they did not want to use the bit-torrent data we were collecting. Semetric gathered social media interactions between music fans and artists and bands. Starting small, the company ended up tracking over a million bands a day, aggregating and analysing data about every Tweet, Facebook like or mention, YouTube play, Wikipedia page view, etc. The company started off with music and ended up covering film, tv, books and games as well before being acquired in the autumn of 2014 18 . As we trawled all these different data types, we found that the bit-torrent data displayed a very close correlation to sales data, which people always wanted to know about. The labels remained very sensitive to the possibility that any public acknowledgement of inherent value in bit-torrent data, of any kind at all, might be leapt upon by their policy opponents and used against them in lobbying governments for stronger copyright legislation. They would rather not see this data used than risk appearing to make any kind of inadvertent endorsement of even a byproduct of piracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:I think being able to believably alter an audio or video recording such that you can make them say anything in their own voice without sounding edited (already almost doable) or puppet them to do something in the video they did not, like some kind of real footage source filmmaker (really crude versions of this exist) e: Part of what I mean by "a video equivalent of Photoshop" is that it's as ubiquitous and cheap as Photoshop. Once any rando with a PC can spoof video, we've got a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Surprise! Tesla's a really lovely place to work: https://twitter.com/ryanfelton/status/926123985238216704 Here are some choice snippets: https://twitter.com/ryanfelton/status/926125430201028608 https://twitter.com/ryanfelton/status/926126221171351553
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Here is the scary thing to me. Right now, a lot of evidence from videophones is proving (although not, alas, in prosecutions) that police brutality against black people exists. As soon as there's a video equivalent of Photoshop, those cellphone videos are automatically discredited, unless streamed to a reliable provider with a timestamp. Well we can pretty reliably fake text and documents but they're still used to unravel all kinds of shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Bates posted:Well we can pretty reliably fake text and documents but they're still used to unravel all kinds of shenanigans. Usually in aggregate though to a history of wrongdoing, which is unsuitable for the kind of events video is best at. If it was ever possible to doctor video convincingly easily rather than just ‘lose the dash cam videos’ we’d be up for trouble. That said though, with everybody carrying a video camera in their pocket, it just becomes about proof in aggregate rather than singular (just like documentation).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 20:49
|
|
