5 ms·

>I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of jav

by jsonne 11y ago

>I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of javascript and data, etc.... This is an extremely simplistic view of the world. You can go on thinking that you're really only sticking it to coca-cola or walmart, but the truth of the matter is that 50% of digital ads (At least on facebook) are SMBs. They're startups, they're mom and pop diners. As for railing against ad agencies, most of us don't work for F500s. We support entrepreneurs, and we do it at very slim margins (often times less than 15%). So, whatever, I probably won't get you to change your mind, just know you aren't sticking it to the man. You're sticking it to the little guy.

potatolicious 11y ago
> "You're sticking it to the little guy." And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around. Yeah, there's nuance to the debate around ad blocking, but this argument is just silly. If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down, just as we would a huge restaurant chain for doing the same. If small businesses are spreading malware by using ad networks that are regularly compromised, it's on them. If small businesses are feeding their user's private data (often via exploits) to extensive ad networks, it's on them. Being small doesn't exempt you from being a good citizen on the internet. Of course, the reality isn't that small businesses and publishers are somehow evil and cackling maniacally as they feed their user's private information to huge ad networks. The reality is that they needed revenue, they chose an ad vendor, and they followed some guide on throwing some JS into the page so the ads get loaded. The real shithead behavior is on the part of these adtech companies. But ultimately the misbehavior of adtech and ad networks is still held against the websites who choose to integrate them, and rightly so. This increases every single time an ad network is compromised to distribute malware, or is actively user-hostile, but the publisher chooses not to switch networks.
- untog 11y ago
  If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down But that's not what you're doing. You're going to the mom and pop diner, eating their food, then declaring that their hygiene standards mean you don't think you should have to pay for the food.
  - potatolicious 11y ago
    Well, this is where the analogy breaks down right? You can easily avoid going to a diner with an infamous reputation, but you can't go to websites the same way. You figuratively have no way of knowing what ad networks they're integrated with until said ad networks are loaded and serving ads. Or worse, you have no idea what you're in for until the latest Flash 0-day has pwned your machine. Hell, it's impossible to even know if a website is integrated with any ad networks at all until you load them. This makes the ethics of blocking ads markedly different from say, dining and dashing. Hell, it makes it a closer neighbor to "if you're reading this you've already agreed to our TOS" than anything else. I think the biggest issue I have here is that internet journos are taking this out against users rather than ad networks. Effectively the entire defense so far has been: "yeah our ad networks are shitty, they are full of malware, they are full of user-hostile abusive shit, they exploit your browser, and they are horribly engineered and slow. We sympathize, but despite the fact that we they are still our preferred vendor should in no way reflect on us and you should continue allowing the abuse, and if you have any problems take it up with our ad vendors. In no way should we be held in any way responsible for the current sorry state of affairs" Which is a completely, absolutely, insanely bullshit stance. Publishers are the customers of ad networks, not us, and until they start pushing for better standards (like, say, The Deck) users will keep blocking them, ethically or otherwise.
mitchty 11y ago
> I probably won't get you to change your mind, just know you aren't sticking it to the man. You're sticking it to the little guy. And that is the exact reason I noted there needs to be an alternative to "my site is ONLY supported by ads". Right now all of this is predicated on that assumption. I challenge that as being necessary, which is why I also noted the google effort which while great for google ads, does nothing for other ad networks. Hopefully that clarifies things as apparently you think I'm against supporting businesses despite my efforts in making that abundantly clear that I am not trying to deprive people of money for their content. I'm unable to right now provide support outside of viewing ads, and that isn't just my problem, its the content providers as well. Taking the easy way out and saying I am the issue with not wanting to view ads and not that all of the parties involved is not very convincing. I do not buy into it being a moral view, nor ethical for that matter.
throwaway23545 11y ago
Well there's a simplistic view of the world if I ever saw one. It is not, for many people, the advertisers that are the problem, but the ad networks. It's the ad networks that cookie and track. It's the ad networks that load the website with horribly slow loading external JS. It's the ad networks that want to track, profile and retarget us to death. It's the ad networks that use any means possible to get that view. From animations and modals to popunders, sound and other trickery. It's the bottom feeding ad networks that accidentally end up pushing malware out. Repeatedly. Most web sites are loading so many external scripts, ads and trackers that the experience is simply broken. Without ad, social and script blocking the web has become unusably slow. Meanwhile, I and many others would be glad to see ads from the little guy - without all the cruft and pollution, if I could do so safe from all the above. That little guy just wants an advert to get her new business going. The ad network sold them all the other crap.
- jsonne 11y ago
  That's a fair view. The ad tech space can be pretty crappy sometimes. I won't disagree that the display universe is broken, or that current tracking methods are excessive. My hope, is that this current pushback helps us come to some sort of reasonable equilibrium between publishers, advertisers, and consumers.

by jsonne 11y ago

potatolicious 11y ago

> "You're sticking it to the little guy." And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around. Yeah, there's nuance to the debate around ad blocking, but this argument is just silly. If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down, just as we would a huge restaurant chain for doing the same. If small businesses are spreading malware by using ad networks that are regularly compromised, it's on them. If small businesses are feeding their user's private data (often via exploits) to extensive ad networks, it's on them. Being small doesn't exempt you from being a good citizen on the internet. Of course, the reality isn't that small businesses and publishers are somehow evil and cackling maniacally as they feed their user's private information to huge ad networks. The reality is that they needed revenue, they chose an ad vendor, and they followed some guide on throwing some JS into the page so the ads get loaded. The real shithead behavior is on the part of these adtech companies. But ultimately the misbehavior of adtech and ad networks is still held against the websites who choose to integrate them, and rightly so. This increases every single time an ad network is compromised to distribute malware, or is actively user-hostile, but the publisher chooses not to switch networks.

untog 11y ago
If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down But that's not what you're doing. You're going to the mom and pop diner, eating their food, then declaring that their hygiene standards mean you don't think you should have to pay for the food.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  Well, this is where the analogy breaks down right? You can easily avoid going to a diner with an infamous reputation, but you can't go to websites the same way. You figuratively have no way of knowing what ad networks they're integrated with until said ad networks are loaded and serving ads. Or worse, you have no idea what you're in for until the latest Flash 0-day has pwned your machine. Hell, it's impossible to even know if a website is integrated with any ad networks at all until you load them. This makes the ethics of blocking ads markedly different from say, dining and dashing. Hell, it makes it a closer neighbor to "if you're reading this you've already agreed to our TOS" than anything else. I think the biggest issue I have here is that internet journos are taking this out against users rather than ad networks. Effectively the entire defense so far has been: "yeah our ad networks are shitty, they are full of malware, they are full of user-hostile abusive shit, they exploit your browser, and they are horribly engineered and slow. We sympathize, but despite the fact that we they are still our preferred vendor should in no way reflect on us and you should continue allowing the abuse, and if you have any problems take it up with our ad vendors. In no way should we be held in any way responsible for the current sorry state of affairs" Which is a completely, absolutely, insanely bullshit stance. Publishers are the customers of ad networks, not us, and until they start pushing for better standards (like, say, The Deck) users will keep blocking them, ethically or otherwise.

mitchty 11y ago

> I probably won't get you to change your mind, just know you aren't sticking it to the man. You're sticking it to the little guy. And that is the exact reason I noted there needs to be an alternative to "my site is ONLY supported by ads". Right now all of this is predicated on that assumption. I challenge that as being necessary, which is why I also noted the google effort which while great for google ads, does nothing for other ad networks. Hopefully that clarifies things as apparently you think I'm against supporting businesses despite my efforts in making that abundantly clear that I am not trying to deprive people of money for their content. I'm unable to right now provide support outside of viewing ads, and that isn't just my problem, its the content providers as well. Taking the easy way out and saying I am the issue with not wanting to view ads and not that all of the parties involved is not very convincing. I do not buy into it being a moral view, nor ethical for that matter.

throwaway23545 11y ago

Well there's a simplistic view of the world if I ever saw one. It is not, for many people, the advertisers that are the problem, but the ad networks. It's the ad networks that cookie and track. It's the ad networks that load the website with horribly slow loading external JS. It's the ad networks that want to track, profile and retarget us to death. It's the ad networks that use any means possible to get that view. From animations and modals to popunders, sound and other trickery. It's the bottom feeding ad networks that accidentally end up pushing malware out. Repeatedly. Most web sites are loading so many external scripts, ads and trackers that the experience is simply broken. Without ad, social and script blocking the web has become unusably slow. Meanwhile, I and many others would be glad to see ads from the little guy - without all the cruft and pollution, if I could do so safe from all the above. That little guy just wants an advert to get her new business going. The ad network sold them all the other crap.

jsonne 11y ago
That's a fair view. The ad tech space can be pretty crappy sometimes. I won't disagree that the display universe is broken, or that current tracking methods are excessive. My hope, is that this current pushback helps us come to some sort of reasonable equilibrium between publishers, advertisers, and consumers.