I think we need to clarify some terms here. Advertising by its very nature is disruptive. It's goal is to interrupt you or grab your attention so that you look at SOMETHING and become aware of it, start to form associations, etc. There really isn't such thing is "relevant" advertising in the sense that ads pertain to my current activity, which, by the way, Zuck insists is "connecting to people."
The real question you're asking is: Would you rather trade some of your data so we can show you ads that you are more likely to click because we have ascertained that these value propositions are likely to drive some kind of an action? (And by the way action is all we really ever know, and is a so-so proxy for "relevance" or value to the user, c.f., clickbait.)
When you ask this question I'm inclined to say some users wouldn't consider this an awesome trade. That's being modest.
This seems a wrong and misleading way of looking at it. Facebook has the data either way, and advertisers aren't getting the data either way. You aren't "trading" anything; the algorithms can either show you something relevant, or show you something irrelevant.
Personally, I'd rather see something I might find amusing. I was about to say "it hasn't happened yet", but I actually have clicked on one FB ad (ever) - the mysterious package company, which actually does look interesting. Not enough to give them my money but still, it's a start.
The only things to ever sell me anything were news articles about cool new innovative products and YouTube videos showing products like that off, from people I subscribe to or other creators in their community.
I've learned to mentally block out any ad-space-based advertising a long time ago, in the Warez-site era of the late 90s, early 2000s. I mostly just get annoyed by the disruption of useful space but I don't even really process ads, I couldn't tell you what the last ad I've seen was, even tho I'm watching a YouTube video with mid-roll ads right now.
I don't trust ads. Especially since I've grown up in Eastern Europe, ad-spaces were always littered with dodgy things here. It's still not a common thing to see ads for products from big brands, etc. Last year I've seen Jesus-cult (not kidding, it was some weird religious sect advertising), Russian singles banner ads on YouTube itself. Oh, and I forgot about the one for "winning the luxury cruise of your dreams".
The only exception to pointless, dodgy and creepy ads I see daily are the e-commerce site product carousel ads. Those more than often advertise products or alternatives to products I just bought. Very useful!
I would very much like to be left out of "personalised" advertising. If this is what my data gets me and gets you as an advertiser then we're both better off with me keeping it to myself anyway.
If I want to hear from your products, I'll subscribe to your newsletter or visit your site.
Absolutely. I have never, to my mind, benefitted from a “relevant” ad.
I work in advertising. I have heard it all, and all of it essentializes an unrealistically infantile and helpless audience. If the audience is so helpless, how could we even reason they have the means to purchase the product being advertised? It really makes no sense.
The answer is extremely easy for me: Give me the irrelevant ads and stop collecting my data.
Well they are only using your data now for ranking your organic news feed and other operational purposes (such as catching fraud which, I hope, you will believe is a big problem on social networks).
Unless now you are like I don't even want FB to rank the news feed and show me posts from fraudulent accounts..
1. I am not on FB. I think i made it clear that I do not support their company or product.
2. I do NOT want FB to rank the newsfeed. It should be deleted or ranked by time. The more parts of a social media product handed over to a ranking or search or algorithmic feed, the more chance they have for anti-user patterns: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/08/social-me...
3. How would a fraudulent account show up on a feed? I'm actually curious. Do they need to be friended first?
Personally, yes. It's easier for me to feel less psychologically manipulated if I'm seeing ads for tampons, in addition to not feeling like someone knows more about me than I'm comfortable with.
There's zero room for ads in my life, so I see almost none. Where some slip through, I consider them an imposition that I avert my gaze from, so I'm indifferent to their content.
Obviously the objection is that its a sentence like: "People consistently tell us that if we're going to hit them, they want it to not be in the face".
