Something Tells Me That We’ve Already Lost the Battle To Prevent Algorithmically Generated Advertising

I’ve been saying it for years: from the moment the Internet made it possible to systematically capture user data, advertising was changed forever. But this was never a change approved by law or public consensus, and instead was simply an opportunity seized on by companies like Google and Facebook who quickly made it a de facto reality of our lives.

Before the internet, all advertisers could do was to assume that somebody who read a particular newspaper, or went past a billboard, or who listened to this or that radio station or watched this or that television program at a particular time would meet the target audience they were trying to reach. Let’s not disregard that segmentation: for many decades, it was the essence of how companies made decisions about multi-million dollar investments and how they reached their potential customers, and even though they knew they were throwing away half their advertising budget — but didn’t know which half — the equation was still clearly positive: our potential customers still knew we existed and where to find us.

But in the Google and Facebook world, everything we do is rigorously collected: our interests, our socio-demographic characteristics, our fears, our sexual preferences and even our health problems, are no longer inferred from what we read, what we see or where we go, but verified based on behavior that used to be private, but which are now constantly observed by others, without our consent, except by subjecting ourselves to social exclusion. The laws hasn’t changed, instead, companies like Google or Facebook have twisted them to do what they wanted.

Now, advertising is placed before our eyes based on what we comment, what we read, our “likes”, or any number of other variables we generate about ourselves. This gives rise to a hyper-segmented advertising, which gives us the impression of being constantly watched, making us suspect that our devices are always spying on us. And in return, what? Do marketing directors really believe they aren’t throwing away half of their advertising budget? Who doesn’t know that this half of what they spend goes to the intermediaries who manage the system? Does what we have gained as a society — or what some have gained — really justify being permanently spied on?

Now, along comes the next spiral in the nightmare: algorithmically generated advertising. Algorithms like ChatGPT making automated, instantaneous decisions about what we should see and which texts we should read, based on our past behavior. And of course, some will think it’s a good idea, and be willing to pay for it, because when it fails, they’ll be able to point the finger elsewhere and blame the algorithm…

Using generative algorithms in advertising is a violation of every ethical code about the uses of this technology. But nobody is going to try to stop this systematic misuse, because these companies have a lot of lawyers on their payroll and will fight to the bitter end to defend their right to spy on us ad nauseam and then place an automated sniper to hit us with their ads designed to make us click on them.

But again… it’s a losing battle. And it leaves the same disgusting and bitter taste as all the previous ones.

—

This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.

***

You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project

You Said ‘Race’, but Are You Actually Talking About Race?

Understanding the Nonbinary: Are You Confusing Gender With Sex?

The Difference Between Compassion for Those With Disabilities & Ableism?

‘Masculinity’ Is Having an Identity Crisis