Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Basically, Gord, neither of these techniques produced a list of attributes that Google has predicted about me. (Yes I was signed on to my Google account).

Trying it now: it worked for me. (old Linux, Firefox).

It's unnerving to see a profile of yourself, especially where it's extrapolated to guess your age range, education, income, home ownership, children. I note with pleasure that it didn't get all of those correct.

I do like that it permits me to delete ad categories that I'm not really interested in. For me, that's a potential upside. If you're going to accept ads in order to support the websites you visit, they should at least be for areas you're interested in. That's what we do when we buy a sailing magazine; we expect (and sometimes we want) to see ads about sailing stuff. We don't expect to see ads for earwax remover.

Internet advertising has a long way to go still, in terms of being relevant and not being too annoying, creepy or intrusive. When guys like Mike finally feel comfortable turning off their ad blockers , then we can say it's matured significantly.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...Internet advertising has a long way to go still, in terms of being relevant and not being too annoying, creepy or intrusive. When guys like Mike finally feel comfortable turning off their ad blockers , then we can say it's matured significantly.

True ... but we're a long way from that.

Actually, there's an easy to achieve this LE. Make all advertising and marketing opt-in. When I am in the market for a product or service, I seek out the information I need. But advertising and marketing intentionally attempts to assert itself before the point where I choose to seek information. In other words, it attempts to influence me.

Currently, ALL advertising works by forcing its way into my attention space. Print ads do it, radio and TV do it, and now Internet-based advertising does it. All advertising is targeted in some way, but online Big Brothers like Google and Facebook have greatly expanded their ability to target people with just the right message. I can't say if this is simply part of a continuum of influence, or whether it represents a quantum leap. Regardless, it is way more powerful than past techniques.

[danstanford]

Google got my age and gender correct but thinks I am Arabic speaking which is completely mystifying and a bit ominous. I have seen soldiered through some French Youtube videos but to my knowledge have never seen or spent any time on an Arabic site. There were no details predicted on my income or other personal details that I saw.
Dan

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Actually, there's an easy [way] to achieve this LE. Make all advertising and marketing opt-in. When I am in the market for a product or service, I seek out the information I need. But advertising and marketing intentionally attempts to assert itself before the point where I choose to seek information. In other words, it attempts to influence me.

Let's examine that. There's the obvious case where if you've looked at camera websites, it's gonna show ads for cameras or camera suppliers. But the truth is that in most cases, even online, the system simply doesn't know enough about you to serve ads for things that you currently want. It's best guess is the site itself - eg camera ads in a photography magazine. So most advertising is about awareness - that you will continue to recognize the brand, be told about their latest products, and have positive associations about it, for the time when you DO want/need their products.

Example - I don't currently need a new anchor, but ads on CF make me aware of some brands. It's not very likely that such an ad will trigger an impulsive anchor purchase. (like most cheap-ass Canadians, I tend to over-research most substantial purchases, so there'd be two weeks of research and spreadsheets before I'd pick an anchor )

I think that opt-in advertising is very much unexplored territory and could be mutually beneficial (with the caveat that by opting in you've just handed them even more accurate info about you) - but in the meantime, how do content providers and curators get paid for building and maintaining websites that are free to visit? Are you ready to pay a little bit to visit an ad-free website?

[danstanford]

I have to say that I have no problem with entities like Google tracking me for advertising purposes. It seems that I am going to see a certain percentage of web screen space covered in advertising, why would I not want it aimed at things I am interested in. As for having advertising free sites, I could pay for that in several places I frequent but I have never even looked to see how much it would cost.
The only issue I have with what Google has collected on me is the puzzlement around the Arabic speaking thing.
Dan

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danstanford

The only issue I have with what Google has collected on me is the puzzlement around the Arabic speaking thing.

That's their nascent pre-crime AI.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's examine that. There's the obvious case where if you've looked at camera websites, it's gonna show ads for cameras or camera suppliers. But the truth is that in most cases, even online, the system simply doesn't know enough about you to serve ads for things that you currently want. It's best guess is the site itself - eg camera ads in a photography magazine. So most advertising is about awareness - that you will continue to recognize the brand, be told about their latest products, and have positive associations about it, for the time when you DO want/need their products.

Are you suggesting advertisers and marketers are not trying to influence you to buy their product, and do it sooner rather than later? Yes, they're informing consumers about their product -- building awareness as you say -- but their ultimate goal is to have you buy their product. Advertising is not neutral on this question.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Example - I don't currently need a new anchor, but ads on CF make me aware of some brands. It's not very likely that such an ad will trigger an impulsive anchor purchase. (like most cheap-ass Canadians, I tend to over-research most substantial purchases, so there'd be two weeks of research and spreadsheets before I'd pick an anchor )

Right, so why do you need advertising? Unless you think your research skills wouldn't turn up all the anchor options, you don't need to be primed with advertising. This model doesn't serve your needs. It serves the company's needs.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think that opt-in advertising is very much unexplored territory and could be mutually beneficial (with the caveat that by opting in you've just handed them even more accurate info about you) - but in the meantime, how do content providers and curators get paid for building and maintaining websites that are free to visit? Are you ready to pay a little bit to visit an ad-free website?

This I have no good answer for. We're all so used to getting so much for "free" that we don't even notice how much it costs us. Of course I'm willing to pay for some online products and services (I do already). Most of us do. But there is a vast array of "free" resources which would need to be paid for directly. If we did, we'd probably find we really don't need a lot of the crap we expose ourselves to (like CF ... kidding of course).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Are you suggesting advertisers and marketers are not trying to influence you to buy their product, and do it sooner rather than later? Yes, they're informing consumers about their product -- building awareness as you say -- but their ultimate goal is to have you buy their product. Advertising is not neutral on this question.

Most people don't buy expensive but useful items out of impulse, they buy out of need... but their choice of whose item to buy is up for grabs, if they haven't firmly decided.

Certain inexpensive products are often impulse purchases... but few people stay with something if the purchase didn't deliver.

In both these cases, you want to gain the customer's trust and loyalty, because brand loyalty and repeat business is money in the bank.

Of course there's a possibility that an ad might move someone from indifference to wanting. And irresponsibly playing up the rewards of having. I can't afford an Oyster 54, but I'd sure like to be that chiseled younger guy shown enjoying one... (ornamental trophy partner optional). This isn't evil; in most cases if something is legal to sell, it should be legal to advertise it. It's up to society to determine the relative harms, and set the guidelines.

...why do you need advertising? Unless you think your research skills wouldn't turn up all the anchor options, you don't need to be primed with advertising. This model doesn't serve your needs. It serves the company's needs.

When someone is intending to buy something, most information about the choices are useful and desired, Few people start from complete ignorance. There's nothing immoral in trying to reach that person to tell them the virtues of your version of that item.

So again, there's useful purposes to advertising:

• to tell consumers of the choices they have
• to fund the content we enjoy for cheap or free

In a free market economy, there's marketing. It's almost axiomatic.

By mid-career (even before I was involved in advertising) I was schooled that sales and marketing are in pretty much all aspects of modern life. You make yourself marketable by education and training, and you have to sell yourself at interviews. At work, when you're presenting an idea or plan to superiors, you have to sell it. As a freelance writer, you're always pitching work to publishers. In dating and partnering, you're sometimes responding to a pitch, and in my case, making the most important sale of my life (and I so closed a sweet deal!!! ). I have to sell my ideas to you. Ready to buy in? Huh? Huh?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Most people don't buy expensive but useful items out of impulse, they buy out of need... but their choice of whose item to buy is up for grabs, if they haven't firmly decided.

You keep talking about impulse buying. I haven't mentioned that at all. I'm talking about how advertising and marketing influences your purchases, including driving people to buy stuff they wouldn't otherwise.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In both these cases, you want to gain the customer's trust and loyalty, because brand loyalty and repeat business is money in the bank.

Agreed. This is part of the marketing plan.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Of course there's a possibility that an ad might move someone from indifference to wanting. And irresponsibly playing up the rewards of having. I can't afford an Oyster 54, but I'd sure like to be that chiseled younger guy shown enjoying one... (ornamental trophy partner optional). This isn't evil; in most cases if something is legal to sell, it should be legal to advertise it. It's up to society to determine the relative harms, and set the guidelines.

Again, it is you who raises the morality of this. I've said nothing about this being evil. Marketing and advertising influences people to do things the influencer wants. We use the same techniques to reduce smoking and get people to wear helmets. Are those evil? Are they (morally) good? These are not terms I use.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When someone is intending to buy something, most information about the choices are useful and desired, Few people start from complete ignorance. There's nothing immoral in trying to reach that person to tell them the virtues of your version of that item.

Again, it is not me who is applying moral standards here. I'm simply pointing out what happens, or what the purpose is to advertising and marketing. Like anything, it is a tool that can be used for both positive and negative outcomes (and the two are usually relative to where one stands).

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So again, there's useful purposes to advertising:

• to tell consumers of the choices they have
• to fund the content we enjoy for cheap or free

Yes, and there are what I would call non-useful purposes to advertising:

• influencing people to buy crap they otherwise would not
• misleading and distorting people's information about certain products or services

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

By mid-career (even before I was involved in advertising) I was schooled that sales and marketing are in pretty much all aspects of modern life. You make yourself marketable by education and training, and you have to sell yourself at interviews. At work, when you're presenting an idea or plan to superiors, you have to sell it. As a freelance writer, you're always pitching work to publishers. In dating and partnering, you're sometimes responding to a pitch, and in my case, making the most important sale of my life (and I so closed a sweet deal!!! ). I have to sell my ideas to you. Ready to buy in? Huh? Huh?

Yes, the language of economics has taken over nearly all sectors of private and public life. It's to the point where we're no longer citizens, we're consumers. Language does matter, and if all we see ourselves as is economic cogs in a wheel, then that's all we'll ever be.

.... how's that for sales pitch .


P.S., just so you know what kind of hypocrite I am, I have worked in public relations. I've run ad campaigns and designed marketing programs and material. I understand fully what I'm doing when I use these tools. I know you do too .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You keep talking about impulse buying. I haven't mentioned that at all. I'm talking about how advertising and marketing influences your purchases, including driving people to buy stuff they wouldn't otherwise.
...

• influencing people to buy crap they otherwise would not

So let's find another name for it than impulse. Ads can (sometimes) create desire where none existed before. So can movies, TV shows, novels, your neighbours or coworkers, internet influencers, daydreams... Eliminating advertising is just tackling one potential source.

...and there are what I would call non-useful purposes to advertising:

• influencing people to buy crap they otherwise would not
• misleading and distorting people's information about certain products or services

As above, advertising isn't the only vehicle for that, and misinformation and misrepresentation in advertising are things the advertiser can be prosecuted or sued for. Try that with a blog post, editorial comment or forum.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So let's find another name for it than impulse. Ads can (sometimes) create desire where none existed before. So can movies, TV shows, novels, your neighbours or coworkers, internet influencers, daydreams... Eliminating advertising is just tackling one potential source.
As above, advertising isn't the only vehicle for that, and misinformation and misrepresentation in advertising are things the advertiser can be prosecuted or sued for. Try that with a blog post, editorial comment or forum.

Absolutely. Completely agree. It's just one source. But it is a source with immense power, and with the Googles of the world, they are becoming even more so. Power can be used for positive or negative outcomes; for good, or for ill if you like. My point is, these new companies have more of it than any before. This should not be downplayed or dismissed.

But you're quite right, advertisers face actual penalties for promulgating overt misinformation, unlike politicians or editorialists who can get away with saying just about anything. If we could apply some sort of Advertising Standards to political statements, boy... that would be a game changer.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Yes, that is correct, they do leave out misinformation and it yes, it does take some skill.

Nope, they have a bad habit of leaving out the information which does not serve their extant agendas which equates to misinformation. For many years they were able to use the equal time ploy to demonstrate their even handedness but people are now wise to this one. I think the Pell case was a turning point in many peoples perception of the ABC and how unreliable a source of information it has become.

The requirement of the courts is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and this should also be a requirement for our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Nope, they have a bad habit of leaving out the information which does not serve their extant agendas which equates to misinformation. For many years they were able to use the equal time ploy to demonstrate their even handedness but people are now wise to this one. I think the Pell case was a turning point in many peoples perception of the ABC and how unreliable a source of information it has become.

The requirement of the courts is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and this should also be a requirement for our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

Been saying that about the BBC for years..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Basically, Gord, neither of these techniques produced a list of attributes that Google has predicted about me. (Yes I was signed on to my Google account).

If you have "Ad personalization" turned off you won't see it. Turn it on temporarily and you should see it (turn of off again immediately aftewards!)

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Nope, they have a bad habit of leaving out the information which does not serve their extant agendas which equates to misinformation. For many years they were able to use the equal time ploy to demonstrate their even handedness but people are now wise to this one. I think the Pell case was a turning point in many peoples perception of the ABC and how unreliable a source of information it has become.....

You have got me curious now; could you point me to some information about the Pell case that others included but the ABC left out on their reporting of this case. For the life of me, I can't remember any aspect other media reported on that the ABC didn't (in the Pell case).

Originally Posted by RaymondR

....The requirement of the courts is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and this should also be a requirement for our tax payer funded national broadcaster.

Interesting comment - in the court environment the requirement for the truth etc only applies to the witness who gives evidence, it doesn't apply to argument or to what evidence can and can't be presented etc.

However if you believe a tax payer funded media outlet should only report 'the truth' then surely you believe the same principle needs to be applied to any other media outlet - No??. If so, almost nothing would ever be reported about almost anything that any politician ever spoke 'on the record'.

As you point out, the ABC is tax payer funded and thus is beholden to the tax payer and certainly not to any sitting government who by definition, is usually only supported by 51+% of the tax payers. Further, it should not beholden to those who pay little or no tax (percentage wise).