As of 2017, more than half of the entire global population uses the internet on a regular basis, proving it to be one of, if not the most, revolutionary inventions of all time. It is used by seemingly everyone in the modern world on a daily basis as a way to communicate, share, create, and so much more. Along with all of this, the internet also has widespread commercial functions as well. One of the most prominent of these functions, along with the distribution of goods, is the industry of advertising and marketing, which in recent years has shifted further and further away from older media such as television and radio in favor of that online. As with older forms of media that have been brought over to the internet, such as e-books and online streaming, online advertising has transformed from its state in traditional media, and has come to take a form all its own. Advertisements permeate the online forum nowadays, and they are nearly impossible to escape, not even with the use of “ad blockers” and other programs offering similar services. The ads can range in style from those found before and in the middle of videos, to banners on the sides of articles, to pop ups that are almost certainly scare the populous into downloading malware. Though these ads may come in various shapes and sizes, there are some seemingly growing ethical issues in the ways they are created and presented, specifically in terms of privacy when it comes to data collection targeted advertising, and regulation, or the lack of it, when it comes to the disclosure of these ads and the content in which they are paired with.

Before getting into the meat of how the current system is ethically questionable, it is important to at least have some understanding of the process these companies use. The first step of this multi-corporation chain is the collection of user data. Websites do this in various ways, such as storing information put on social media outlets such as Twitter or Facebook, or by tracking behaviors such as which sites users visit, the videos they watch, the things they buy, and so on (Smith). Regardless of how the information is obtained, it is then sold off to advertising companies, typically via two primary methods. The first of which is that the advertising companies will create the advertisement entirely on their own, using the information gained from buying the users data. This ad is then put onto an automated auctioning service, where advertisers bid money on time slots for videos or space for banners on websites, either randomly or with constraints to advertise to targeted audiences (Roy). The other major way in which advertisers push their products is through partnering with content creators to promote their products for them, specifically partnering with creators whose core audience coincides with that of the target audience of the product being sold (Todor). The amount of control given to the content creator in terms of the ad varies from company to company, but is relatively common for the advertiser to give creators almost complete freedom, as long as the product is portrayed in a positive light.

Knowing this, the inherent ethical issues that arise with the way the system functions become fairly evident, such as the invasion of privacy that comes with data collection and targeted advertising and the lack of transparency that can come from giving creators too much freedom when they create their own advertisements for companies. Starting at the beginning of the process, data collection presents itself as the section with the clearest of ethical issues, and it is almost impossible to sugar coat. They used the user’s data to target the ad to the user, nowhere letting said user to know, let alone give consent to these actions. The question could be posed as whether it or not it is ethical for companies to be able to use user data with such reckless abandon at all, even if the end user knew that their data was being used. However, whether or not the user is okay with the company using their information goes out the window when you deprive them the right to know. This breaks trust at almost every level, from the specific company that the user first hears about doing this to internet in general, since as soon as it is known that one company is using this practice, it can be hard to think that other companies are not participating as well. After all, they would not want to lose a competitive edge. 

On the topic of data collection, it is also important to know that the stored user data is not impermeable to attacks from malicious hackers. Data breaches occur fairly regularly online, and unless there is a breakthrough in data encryption technology, they are likely to remain a frequent event (Daitch). These breaches can have devastating effects on the user, leading to identity theft and an extreme loss of personal security. The emotions that come from this is comparable to someone’s diary being read aloud, except in this case the diary is essentially everything that that person is. From an outside perspective, it may seem silly to put it in such terms, certainly these companies could not have that much reach. And yes, unless explicitly told by Google or Facebook themselves, there is no way to know for certain how much information such hold, examples from the past give a pretty accurate and shocking representation. As noted in the show Adam Ruins Everything, an incident occurred in which advertisers began spamming a woman with pro-LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) advertising before she had even come out to her coworkers (CollegeHumor, Angwin). This case shows just how much these companies are willing to stalk the users of their sites, so much so that the companies know the users better than their real-life acquaintances do. In short, it is fair to say whatever data advertisers can manage to get their hands on, they will store it, and they will find out how to make a profit from it.

From one part of the process to the next, targeted advertising may not seem like it presents an ethical issue when looked at from the surface. Streamlined and customized advertisements for products that the viewer will most likely want, what is there to lose? But it is important to consider the fact that targeted advertising is what fuels the data collection industry; without one, the other could not exist. For some this trade off may not seem so bad, but the preferences of the few do not represent that of the whole, and regardless of the how this which preference makes up the majority mindset, companies never asked individuals in the first place. They did it regardless because it would help their bottom dollar. This lack of communication created the current situation within the industry, and with the current state of public opinion on the topic mostly being one of indifference, they have very little incentive to change their ways of doing business.

Another issue that arises when discussing the practice of targeted online advertising is that of honesty. Within the online community, it is at times hard to discern fact from fiction, and the advertisers know this. Online ads often have hyperbolic claims in order to entice the consumer into making a purchase (Brinson, Eastin) and with the current system and its lack of any real repercussions, why would they not? Now it may be said that this is old news. A very viable strategy for pushing a product has always that of the path of least information; however, this issue is exacerbated when the advertiser knows exactly who is being shown the ad, as well as how likely that person is to make purchasing decisions based on ads they are shown online. This practice can be extraordinarily detrimental on the consumer, as a lack of knowledge on what it is exactly that they are purchasing can lead to unnecessary financial stress and an overall distrust of online companies, and while this distrust may not be a fair outlook to have towards the entire industry, it is not unjustified given the consumers previous interactions with the players within this industry. 

Moving on from this, the focus is shifted from those who mastermind these advertisements themselves to those who curate these ads and present them towards the end user: content providers. When it comes to online creators, several ethical issues in terms of advertising emerge, but one clearly takes precedence over the rest: how can individuals who are trusted to entertain be trusted to disclose when they are selling a product. This issue has raised it its head several times on site ranging the gambit of the internet in its current form. From YouTube to Instagram to Twitter, and everything in between. While several examples of this occurring have taken place in recent memory, an especially egregious example comes in the form of celebrity Kylie Jenner, who has time and time again been caught red handed promoting products on her social media platforms, all the while failing to ever disclose the nature of the advertisement to any reasonable amount, leaving those who follow her on such platforms to come to their own conclusions. Jenner has been told several times that her failure to disclose advertisements would lead to her having legal action taken against her, but along with this it has become clear to those following developments that no legal actions have been taken, and that Jenner evaded the whole debacle with virtually no repercussions (Close). This lack of enforcement truly highlights the flaws in the contemporary system of online advertising, that being that there are no true standards. Individuals who take the same actions are often met with extremely varying consequences, leading to more and more creators taking to this form of “stealth advertising” or other similar tactics.

This same issue can also be seen from the opposite perspective, as certain online personalities have presented reviews of products with the notion that these reviews are based in fact, when in reality those presenting the review have affiliations with rival companies, and financial incentive to be seen as better than the competition. A perfect example of this can be seen in the case of Honest Mattress reviews versus Purple Mattress Company. Ryan Monahan, owner of the mattress review website HonestMatressReview.com, began to make claims on his site again Purple Mattress, specifically claiming that a white powder that came on their mattresses when ordered may be harmful to consumers. If this claim was true, it could have been extremely helpful to consumers, saving them from sleeping atop a hazardous material that could shorten their lifespan. However, after Purple Mattress Co. sued Ryan Monahan for defamation against their company, it was brought to light that not only were Monahan’s claims false, but that he also had corporate ties with GhostBed, a company that provides similar services as the Purple Mattress Company. These two companies are direct competitors to the letter, and Monahan’s claims were without a doubt meant to give his company a leg up on the mattress market, not as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of law. As of September 2017, Judge Dee Benson ruled that Monahan’s claims were made to fool consumers (Turk). While this is an excellent story that highlights how justice prevails in the end, it also highlights how easily it is for reviews online to lack any form of transparency, and how this can be used to manipulate consumers. This issue is said perfectly in Purple Mattress’s response to the issue, in which they state “We sincerely hope GhostBed and Monahan will stop their unlawful actions against Purple and stop attempting to deceive consumers so we can finally put this matter to bed (pun intended!). The products of both companies deserve to be evaluated on their true merit.” (Turk), as it does an excellent job at encompassing how a lack of transparency can keep consumers from making fair purchasing decisions.

As with the rest of these issues there is not one universally agreed upon fix for the issue of entertainers failing to reveal when they were paid to promote. In the 2017 way of thinking, most look to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to regulate those who produce online in a similar fashion to the standards they currently hold with the cable companies, but this has led to a myriad of problems. Internet content is much less predictable to that of older media, being much more focused on the individual and uninterrupted freedom of speech, expression, and creativity. Any kind of government regulation of the internet will be met with extreme backlash and cries of censorship, and in a sense these cries are not unjustified. As can be seen with the mess that was the 2017 YouTube “Adpocalypse”, an event in which advertisers began backing out of having their ads shown on the platform, which in turn led to stricter yet inconsistent regulations (Wakabayashi, Maheshari), any form of regulation on the internet will often lead to either a lack of commitment or, on the other hand, a far too inconsistently strict system, punishing everyone except those that the company can basically control themselves, regardless of the content actually being created by others.

An excellent example of this comes through the story of Casey Neistat and Jimmy Kimmel, in which Neistat, a prominent independent YouTube creator got monetization removed from one of his videos as it had discussed a recent shooting that had occurred in Las Vegas, a subject that the website would not allowed to be monetized. Noting this, it became very interesting to users of the site who then noted that late night personality Jimmy Kimmel, who YouTube has often promoted through the spotlight on their trending page, had a similar video in regard to the Vegas tragedy that had not received any form of demonetization, and was still being actively promoted by the site (Alexander). This issue is not YouTube specific either. Countless sites allow those who are already established and have ties to the company in control to have a much looser interpretation of the rules, resulting in the rich getting richer and those who just want to try their hand at online content creation finding it more difficult to start out, often having to turn to alternative sources of funding such as crowd sourcing, which only really works once a creator has an established audience.

Regardless of whether or not everyone sees this as an issue, it is important to be informed as to what happens to personal data that is posted on the internet, how this information is used for advertising, and how these ads are presented; however, there are currently roadblocks that stand in the way of this. In terms of data, knowing what is collected is made almost impossible due to a pure lack of transparency on the part of companies such as Facebook or Google, and it is doubtful that these companies will ever change their ways without government regulations or other forms of societal pressure such as boycotts. In terms of the presentation of these advertisements, it is also important for those who are creating content to have an equal level of transparency when it comes to when they are advertising towards their audience, as without it, it is nearly impossible to tell when content providers are presenting an honest review of a product, or whether their thoughts on it have been skewed by financial incentives. This said, it is important to note that this change is also very unlikely to come without some form of public outcry (Brinson, Eastin). 

Though there are not currently any perfect solutions for these issues shown in the world of online advertising, society as a whole should not have to sit back and be at the whim of these large companies and the rules and expectations they set. It is up to lawmakers, and the pressure that is put on them by their constituents, to remedy these issues by presenting clear regulations to how advertisements work online. Regulations that give consumers options on how their data gets passed around, and regulations that give them the peace of mind of knowing that when it comes to the content they are provided and the reviews they read online are not paid for by the businesses making the products, and are in fact the honest thoughts of the content creator. It is time to tame the wild west that is the world of advertising online.
