Facebook ads - why do I see what I see?

I have been focused on the micro-targeting of Facebook ads ever since Facebook said it would not block political ads containing falsehoods. If you care, you can learn some things about why you see what you see.

For any ad, you will have three dots in the upper right-hand corner. Clicking this icon will offer multiple options including one that explains what about your history fit with the goals of the source for that ad. So, here is an ad I received for hearing aids (my hearing is fine).

So, yes, I am an old male living in the U.S. and you can probably guess what types of devices, pills, and services advertisers think I would find useful.

Be Brave

I admit to being a stubborn idealist. Some of us have to do it. My latest idealistic commitment is to the Brave browser and the micropayment system it encourages users to employ.

First, you don’t have to buy in (literally) to the micropayment system to use the Brave browser. I will explain a little about this opportunity after a few introductory comments about the browser.

It makes sense to me that believing you use the Internet for free is naive. Of course, you must pay for access to the Internet. This is not what I am describing here, but because of the end of net neutrality, it is another topic worth thinking carefully about. Most use of the Internet and the companies that host content (mostly written by users) is supported by ads and by the collection of personal information which can be used to target ads. Some of this targeting makes sense. If I have to view ads, I want to view ads relevant to my interests and needs. However, one of the things the election of 2016 taught us was that this same personal information offering you ads relevant to things you may be interested in purchasing can also be used to manipulate opinions regarding political candidates.

Some are aware of such issues and have responded by searching for ways to anonymize their Internet activity and block the collection of ads and personal information. Brave will do this for you.

However, when you think about this ad blocking is really not fair to those supporting themselves as content producers by posting ads along with their content. You probably know that most newspapers and magazines do the same thing and as a consequence your cost to purchase these resources is far lower than it would be without the ads. The “free” content takes this same principle to an extreme requiring nothing to view content and attempting to sustain the content producers with ads. By blocking ads, you circumvent the intentions of the producers offering the content. Most don’t think twice about doing so mostly because they are unaware of the consequences, but the behavior is pretty much unethical. If an ad exists, the provider assumes you will see it and perhaps even click on it. This is the implied contract in the arrangement.

Brave will block ads, but encourages users of the browser to make a contribution that will be distributed across the owners of the content you use based on the frequency of your use. This system is presently a little complicated to set up. You must create a cryptocurrency account and transfer money into this account for Brave to access. I figured it out, but I hope Brave can make the process simpler. Folks with a little tech experience should have no problem working their way through the requirements.

While I am idealist, there is a limit to how far I will pursue my commitment to supporting content producers. I terminated my Apple music account and I intend to use this money to support the Brave strategy. I decided it was silly to pay $10 a month when I also pay for two other music subscriptions and I pay Apple $25 a year to hold my 7000 song music collection. So, my financial liability is limited, but if everyone did this ….

Brave - new browser and new funding model

I have written several posts arguing that online content is not free and the present approach is not sustainable. The argument regarding the false perception of free is that even if you are not paying for online content with cash the online sites are harvesting your information to be sold to interested parties. Information about you is used to manipulate you in one way or another. Someone will pay. The most recent example of someone will pay might be the use of information about users to tailor the political information they received during the 2016 election.

I also believe that free is not sustainable. Quality content (information created to be factually accurate and semi-independent) takes time and skill to develop. How many individuals is it reasonable to assume will provide such content as a hobby? How many of the online services we use could possibly provide such content if the online service had means of support. I suggest both content creators and content hosts must have some means of compensation.

Those with commercial interests are already forcing our expectations of free to be reconsidered. I recently wrote a post describing the soon to be realized plans for upgrades to Chrome (Google) and Safari (Apple). Google promises to block the most onerous ads (pop-ups, video/audio that plays automatically). Apple promises to block all ads AND block cross-site tracking. These companies are taking these steps to protect their own interests. Google makes a high percentage of its income from ads and hopes encouraging higher quality ads will sustain the ad-based content model. Apple has no stake in ads at all and hopes to take advantage of customer annoyance with ads to prioritize their browser and hardware. Whatever the other issues with ads and ad-blockers, companies will take advantage of the situation to limit the value of online ads to content creators and other technology companies. This combination of the long-term value of quality and the willingness of technology companies to find some type of leverage will kill the present funding opportunities.

My prediction is that quality information will go the way of streaming music. I would describe this as micro-payments and many of us already accept such a system to listen to music (I pay for Google and Apple music subscriptions). Google music, for example, also allows me to view YouTube content without ads (YouTube Red).

Here is a new approach you will likely learn about soon if you have not already given it a try. Brave is a new project providing a great browser that can be used in three ways - as a traditional browser, as an ad blocking browser, or as a micro-payment browser. As I understand the micro-payment model, users commit a certain amount of money for a month - say $4. Brave will track the sites the user visits for the month and divide up the $4 payment among those sites that have signed up to be paid (described as claiming your share).

I believe there are significant scale-up issues, but here is how this might go. If Brave can get enough individuals to get the system started (pay in a few dollars so that content creators see a return), I predict Brave will offer producers the opportunity to block nonparticipants. It is not difficult to block a given browser or deny access to users employing ad blockers. There will likely continue to be battles between those wanting to block ads and those wanting to block ad blocking. If Brave makes the move I predict, I might decide as a content creator that is it better to have 10 readers paying one cent per view than 100 readers who block my ads or if the revenue from displaying ads seldom results in any income because no viewers click on the ads. There are a lot of ifs in my analysis, but I do think what I describe is possible and I think it makes enough sense that some will give it a try. The micropayment approach ended up winning the music wars because even though some access was free, playing just what you wanted to hear was attractive enough to generate payment.

Whatever you think, take a look at the Brave browser. It is very fast and just an interesting alternative. I am considering throwing in a few bucks a month and possibly enrolling my content as a participant just to see what happens. It appears to be easy to get in and to get out.

I do have one suggestion for Brave. I think more folks would trust your motives if you did not include the "no ads" option. As I understand the argument you make, publishers should be compensated. The argument would be stronger if the options available were limited to a) ads as intended by the publisher and b) the reader-funded mode with no ads.

It is only fair

I just finished a Kindle book called Layering for Learning. The book concerns opportunities educators have to layer (add) questions, annotations, comments on online content (video, web pages) to create instructional content. My expectation is that this layering would be most commonly applied to content not originally created by the teacher - e.g., a YouTube video that fits with the teacher's curriculum.

The image above is MoocNote and one of the services I describe. MoocNote is a service you can use to add comments, questions and similar annotations to online video. If you look carefully at the image, you will note my arrow pointing to an ad (oddly as these things go to an ad for an ad blocker). One of the boundary conditions I established for myself in writing this book was that the services I describe used a system that accepted the content to be annotated from the content creator's server. What this means to me is that in layering content to improve a learning opportunity, the original material and the way it is delivered is not altered. This commitment to the original includes the display of ads.

I understand that ads can be annoying and are kind of off limits to learners under the age of 13. Still, I consider the use of techniques to avoid ads and still display the ad-supported content as a copyright violation (or at least unethical). I assume that when you accept content provided at no cost to you the intentions of the individual creating that content should be honored. If you do not want to view ads, look for another content source. It is only fair.

We have entered the spin zone

What are you willing to share to get something in return? The answer to this question may be very relevant to the future of several companies - Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

Are you willing to share data derived from your online behavior? This seems to be shaping up as a dividing line newly promoted by these companies to differentiate themselves and attract users and their money. (The New Yorker offers their analysis).

Here is how the companies spin their positions. Google wants you to believe that it collects information about you to provide you better online experiences. The more Google knows, the more helpful it can be. Do you want random ads or do you want ads that address personal interests? (No open consideration of whether you want ads at all). Apple and Microsoft, in contrast, vow to protect your privacy. The use of data derived from your online behavior is described as a privacy issue.

I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information.
Guess who - Tim Cook 

When I attempt to understand the decisions of technology companies, I ask myself “What are the business model?” We know what these companies offer. Microsoft sells software and some might argue services. Apple sells you hardware, some software, and access to content and services developed by other companies. Google sells a few services and access to other companies content and software, but mostly it sells ad impressions.

These companies do offer users some “no cost” incentives. Microsoft gives away some cross-platform services (One Note, Bing search). Apple gives away some software to Apple users (the OS and productivity apps), but is very limited in cross-platform opportunities. Google gives away many cross-platform services.

You are a user? What do you want? Do remember the Stones’ song - You can’t always get what you want (but if you try some time, you can get what you need)? This actually good advice and should be heeded in this situation. An acceptable answer to the question of what do you want should not be - I want stuff for free. A better answer might be - I want reasonably priced goods and services and not to be taken advantage of in order to obtain what I need.

Apple’s present gamble is that it can do locally on a device what Google does with machine learning and the Google cloud. Apple understands the importance of personalization, but intends to develop a different approach. Rather than collect information based on your behavior, store these data in the cloud and then personalize services based on what appear to be your priorities, Apple intends to keep your data on your device to convince you that your data are not being shared or used for other evil purposes. If developed by Apple using this approach, a service comparable to Google Now could offer useful information related to personal needs without sharing the personal priorities the system determined with Apple. I suppose Apple assumes you view ads as a nuisance you could do without and can search when you want information about a product or service. Apple also assumes you can do without free Google services and will find other services as a substitute. I also suppose it is possible Apple may believe it can offer similar free services if providing such services further reduced interest in what Google offers. This last possibility has yet to materialize as Apple has not been able to develop credible cloud services to this point.

What about Microsoft? A similar logic might apply. Microsoft now promotes its combination of free and paid services (and software) by assuming you are willing to pay for some things in compensation for not having to share personal information.

If you are willing to give up your Google services what is it you assume? I suggest you assume Apple will be able to actually create the device based “personal priority and needs” approach it claims to be developing and that Apple will get far better at cloud services.

The “nuclear option” for anti-Google companies is to build in default mechanisms for blocking ads. At present, if Google can show no ads it would not have enough alternative revenue streams to stay afloat. Customers taking advantage of this “privacy” opportunity and not understanding what they get in the trade for their information could possibly ruin Google. Of course, it is more complicated than just Google vs. Apple and Microsoft. Removing ads, also removes an incentive for many who offer content for free. Those offering content would need other incentives for doing so and the consequences of these other incentives are unclear.

Why do I care? While I understand the general motive of companies to acquire as much of the pie as possible, I do not see a system with few players as great for consumers. I think greater awareness of how companies make money is important. How you or I interpret these finance models is important? It is possible to spin whichever approach you choose to attack? Apple’s model involves overpricing locking users into software and services that may not be the best available. Apple supports blocking ads that were intended to appear by the authors of content. Google uses data about user behavior.