I've heard this argument a lot but it's hard for me to agree.
Saying that ad arbitrage doesn't "add value" is kind of like arguing that someone with a media-buying/sales role doesn't "add value" because they're just sitting in the middle taking a paycheck/commission.
Partnering with ad arbitragers isn't much different than outsourcing internal media buying/sales roles to an agency to increase reach or fill-rate.
Your point about ads being annoying to end-users isn't unique to digital. Advertisements on all mediums have always annoyed end-users. Certain implementations like full-page takeovers & loading 100 ads on a page are the most annoying. Generally it's the publisher's fault for the bad UX.
This is untrue. Historically speaking, print advertisements in many markets (even when restricted to English-speaking ones) could and did serve multiple purposes, including the relation of interesting topics and stories--ones that certainly were brought-to-you-by or even featured products in them, but worked in concert with the material of the publlication to entertain and inform the reader.
It wasn't until the 1960s, approximately, that print advertisements turned into the screaming look-at-me garbage that they have continued to amplify in volume to this day.
Advertising does not have to be a pustule on society, but we have chosen to allow such.
A favourite telling of this is Hamilton Holt's 1909 lecture at UC Berkeley, published in book form.
It's a quick and informative read.
Is the entire point. Yes, advertising might add value to other parties. It's almost certainly net negative overall.
1. Ad arbitrage has a role.
2. The blame of annoying/bad UX is unfairly being deferred to arbitragers. It's usually the implementation that annoys users, and that's generally the publisher's fault.
I don't know anything about System1's ethics and I'm not trying defend them by any means, but I don't agree with an argument that X company is bad because they've participated in arbitrage.
That in no way implies I approve or like what they do - I run ad block wherever possible. Just refuse to believe in falsehoods trendy among rich, Urban tech savvy HN-ers, whose reality is far removed from the truth. Some estimates peg the value of "free" internet services, like Google search, Gmail, Facebook, etc at $30/month. That's a lot of value, if you ask me
In the modern era and with the corpus of data available to them, advertisers are psychological attackers and should be treated as such.
The company you work at creates a product. How would people find out about it without any advertising? Keep in mind that even just having a sign in front of a store is advertising.
Probably a very minority view on HN, but I'd like to outlaw and treat as hostile all forms of advertising, except:
+ Yellow Pages style classified magazines and sites - Like old-school Yellow Pages, or the classifieds in the back of old magazines. When I want a new product, I can open the site or book and look for one. Easy.
+ Flat, silent and static magazine and newspaper style ads, locally served.
+ Branding on the packaging.
+ Shop signage akin to say the sixties or earlier - sign on frontage only. Illumination only whilst store open, and it's after lighting up time. No 20m KFC neon topped poles outside. No floodlights 24/7.
Nowt else. I'm fucking sick of the advertising arms race.
Those around here old enough to remember Computer Shopper [1] and other similar phone-book sized ad catalogues might agree that those were an example of a form of advertising which met at least three of the four mentioned criteria, some even might have met the fourth (being honesty). The model seemed to work back in those days given the 30-year lifespan of the magazine, the advent of the 'net followed by the decline of paper magazines eventually did it in.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Shopper_(US_magazine)
Computer Shopper - the UK version lasted about as long, Autotrader and Exchange and Mart are exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Advertising as a positive, and nicely self-contained - you bought Autotrader when you needed a new car or van. Sure beats retargeting chasing you with the same ad for days because you briefly read a page on some silly product.
It was better then.
This "oh but what about a sign?!" is some /r/iamverysmart strawman junk and I would hope that you would be better than that.
There is nothing wrong with non-tracking advertizing -- looking solely at the content of the page ad is embedded it, or at the search term for the search engine is enough to let people know about new products, and has no negative social implications.
As a side note - the whole digital advertising industry reminds me a little of the financial engineering on Wall Street of the last decade. Doesn't add any new value to society - and in many ways actually harms it - but makes so much money that companies build their whole strategy around it.