11 ms·

Being that I make money from serving ads, I come at this a bit differently. In a lot of markets, it's one of the most passive ways to make money, but to be sure

Being that I make money from serving ads, I come at this a bit differently. In a lot of markets, it's one of the most passive ways to make money, but to be sure, the creepiness factor has been advertisers' hubris-induced-downfall. In any case, I haven't seen anyone here mention the ad networks themselves. Every once and a while we would get a complaint about a bad ad - it wouldn't dismiss, etc. Over time, we whittled down our network list to ad networks that strictly test and vet the ads they serve, no matter how much time that takes. The networks blaming a "rogue advertiser" means they're not even passing ads on their network through automated malware detection software, and so they have responsibility here. Creepiness factor aside, the explosion of networks is a problem, because so very few are actually providing more than a basic service. We really should be holding networks responsible for their ads. We did, and we haven't had a complaint for a very long time. Edit: this doesn't absolve Forbes, especially if they did nothing to correct the problem. Edit 2: by "we should hold the networks responsible" I mean "we the publishers" - and as that "we" we still have a responsibility to our users/consumers. See Edit 1.

BlackFly 11y ago
The problem isn't advertisements per se, the problem is advertisement networks that track users and sell their profiles. The only thing I have installed that counts as an ad blocker is Ghostery. I still get served advertisements at conscientious websites like duckduckgo.com or any other place that doesn't rely 100% on tracking networks. Imagine if simply because you walked into Target, they hired a private investigator to follow you around and determine your personal habits, hobbies and other stores you visited. Imagine if they then used that information to attempt to lure you into the store, or sold that information to Best Buy so they could lure you into the store. I think most people would have a problem with such behavior. Making a more realistic physical analogy would be slipping an RFID token into your wallet without you noticing and only tracking you in stores that use the corresponding RFID reader. In my opinion, tracking networks go the extra mile beyond a creepiness factor. My visit to your website isn't tacit approval for you to peruse my browsing of other websites. I shouldn't need to opt out of this behavior by installing Ghostery in the first place.
- geocar 11y ago
  Individual profiles are rarely sold directly[1], but some demographic is taken so that the publisher can sell your traffic at a higher rate. This is a good thing because it means they can make more money with less traffic, which in turn means that they don't have to appeal to anybody and everybody. This is (hypothetically) where quality content comes from. Unfortunately most of the ad industry is really crap at this. For example, Oracle/Bluekai leak `var bk_results` into the web page allowing anyone to pick up this data which means that this information can (and is) often used for much more than just better ads. [1]: One notable space where they are sold is ABM. Unless you're a decision maker for an enterprise supply budget, this isn't you.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    It is odd to see advertisers speak of tracking so casually. Tracking is still new. Up until a few years ago (like 3) the majority of the industry (by money) did not track users. A huge, but admittedly declining, segment still don't. Billboards do not track. TV ads do not track. Physical shop fronts do not track. Radio ads do not track. And a great many website still sell space to people selling actual products, rather than banner ads, which bypasses all adblockers. There are plenty of ways to get your message out, and make money in return, without inventing new supercookies for me to ferret out of my system.
    - geocar 11y ago
      Both Outdoors and Television do the same by-demographic buying/selling, in fact, that's where the Internet got it! Outdoors and Television don't track (except when they do[1]) because they don't need to; because there exists a huge problem with digital that doesn't exist for Outdoors and Television: Ad Fraud. There are a lot of websites out there with a lot of (aggregate) traffic, but that individually don't have enough traffic to approach advertisers directly. It is good that we can monetise them because sometimes this can fund their niche content, however it also means that people can make fake websites and trick advertisers into buying that space. Of course, real users don't go to those sites, which is a nascent use for tracking: Sites that are visited by some population who don't visit other sites are simply more suspicious. [1]: Precision Marketing (for example) has data on billboards collected from mobile devices. Many OTT and SmartTV devices send tracking data as well.
belorn 11y ago
Why should the advertisement networks be the sole responsible when it is the publisher that subcontract the activity of delivering ads to visitors? The responsibility for distributing malware should be shared between each party that earn revenue from the illegal activity, which include the publisher, the network and the criminal. Passively earning money on criminal activity should not be the primary method that content creator earn money. I also find it very problematic that offline advertisement are held to a much higher standard and required to follow local laws, while web based advertisement can even get away with distributing malware without repercussions.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Who said anything about passively earning money from illegal activity? I'll clarify - by "we should hold networks responsible" I mean "we the publishers" - that doesn't absolve our responsibility to the consumer. The fact is, the overwhelming number of ads online are free from malware, to a large number of 9s-decimal places. Still, networks need to vet the ads they serve. That's something they _can_ do that publishers cannot.
  - belorn 11y ago
    The publisher has the same ability to vet the advertisement that a subcontractor delivery, that a company has to vet the construction material when subcontracting the construction of a building. If publisher were held responsible, they would only deal with advertisement network that are held economically responsible if advertisement they deliver breaks the law. That mean higher costs, less revenue, but an end to the wild west we currently have. If I buy a paper based newspaper, the ads on those follow a very strict set of local laws. Each time an illegal ad is mistakenly printed, its news that other papers just love to write about. If I buy a online subscription, none of this laws are in place, and to the same large number of 9s-decimal places that you talk about, the illegal ads will be on the online version.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      This is patently false. We have zero ability to vet ads as a publisher without spinning up an entire as sales department larger than my entire company. The networks we use can and do vet the ads before serving them.
geocar 11y ago
"Holding networks responsible" sounds great, but the money chain isn't transparent, so whether you hold them responsible or not is irrelevant: Users hold you responsible if they see your URL and have a bad day. By the way, your website is down.
- themartorana 11y ago
  That's what I said - Forbes needs to hold the networks responsible. Obviously the consumer can't, and as I said in the edit, that doesn't absolve Forbes. Also I don't spend any time on my personal website these days. I haven't checked in on it in months...
  - geocar 11y ago
    I wasn't disagreeing with you: Forbes absolutely should hold the networks responsible, because we hold Forbes responsible. However, the consumer can hold the networks responsible: they just install an ad blocker. :)
kpil 11y ago
But I don't get it? If i go to forbes.com and my computer is p0wned by some shit that they or their partners delivered, why are they not liable for damages? Isn't this a class action suit waiting to happen, or is it not applicable, because Internet?
- DrScump 11y ago
  why are they not liable for damages? The more relevant question is: how would you (or another random end user) prove that the malware was served through their, and only their, site?
manigandham 11y ago
There's also a subtle problem of mistrust in all this. Ad creatives have evolved from just simple banner images to more rich media but those files are relatively safe. The biggest problem is the explosion of javascript tags used for verification and analysis because a lack of trust and politics has led agencies/advertisers to require layers of external tracking. This requirement has forced ad networks to support 3rd party javascript tags - which is basically impossible to verify for security. If you can run javascript on a page, you can control that page. Fundamentally there needs to be more regulation, standards and actual enforcement to fix this.

BlackFly 11y ago

The problem isn't advertisements per se, the problem is advertisement networks that track users and sell their profiles. The only thing I have installed that counts as an ad blocker is Ghostery. I still get served advertisements at conscientious websites like duckduckgo.com or any other place that doesn't rely 100% on tracking networks. Imagine if simply because you walked into Target, they hired a private investigator to follow you around and determine your personal habits, hobbies and other stores you visited. Imagine if they then used that information to attempt to lure you into the store, or sold that information to Best Buy so they could lure you into the store. I think most people would have a problem with such behavior. Making a more realistic physical analogy would be slipping an RFID token into your wallet without you noticing and only tracking you in stores that use the corresponding RFID reader. In my opinion, tracking networks go the extra mile beyond a creepiness factor. My visit to your website isn't tacit approval for you to peruse my browsing of other websites. I shouldn't need to opt out of this behavior by installing Ghostery in the first place.

geocar 11y ago
Individual profiles are rarely sold directly[1], but some demographic is taken so that the publisher can sell your traffic at a higher rate. This is a good thing because it means they can make more money with less traffic, which in turn means that they don't have to appeal to anybody and everybody. This is (hypothetically) where quality content comes from. Unfortunately most of the ad industry is really crap at this. For example, Oracle/Bluekai leak `var bk_results` into the web page allowing anyone to pick up this data which means that this information can (and is) often used for much more than just better ads. [1]: One notable space where they are sold is ABM. Unless you're a decision maker for an enterprise supply budget, this isn't you.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  It is odd to see advertisers speak of tracking so casually. Tracking is still new. Up until a few years ago (like 3) the majority of the industry (by money) did not track users. A huge, but admittedly declining, segment still don't. Billboards do not track. TV ads do not track. Physical shop fronts do not track. Radio ads do not track. And a great many website still sell space to people selling actual products, rather than banner ads, which bypasses all adblockers. There are plenty of ways to get your message out, and make money in return, without inventing new supercookies for me to ferret out of my system.
  - geocar 11y ago
    Both Outdoors and Television do the same by-demographic buying/selling, in fact, that's where the Internet got it! Outdoors and Television don't track (except when they do[1]) because they don't need to; because there exists a huge problem with digital that doesn't exist for Outdoors and Television: Ad Fraud. There are a lot of websites out there with a lot of (aggregate) traffic, but that individually don't have enough traffic to approach advertisers directly. It is good that we can monetise them because sometimes this can fund their niche content, however it also means that people can make fake websites and trick advertisers into buying that space. Of course, real users don't go to those sites, which is a nascent use for tracking: Sites that are visited by some population who don't visit other sites are simply more suspicious. [1]: Precision Marketing (for example) has data on billboards collected from mobile devices. Many OTT and SmartTV devices send tracking data as well.

belorn 11y ago

Why should the advertisement networks be the sole responsible when it is the publisher that subcontract the activity of delivering ads to visitors? The responsibility for distributing malware should be shared between each party that earn revenue from the illegal activity, which include the publisher, the network and the criminal. Passively earning money on criminal activity should not be the primary method that content creator earn money. I also find it very problematic that offline advertisement are held to a much higher standard and required to follow local laws, while web based advertisement can even get away with distributing malware without repercussions.

themartorana 11y ago
Who said anything about passively earning money from illegal activity? I'll clarify - by "we should hold networks responsible" I mean "we the publishers" - that doesn't absolve our responsibility to the consumer. The fact is, the overwhelming number of ads online are free from malware, to a large number of 9s-decimal places. Still, networks need to vet the ads they serve. That's something they _can_ do that publishers cannot.
- belorn 11y ago
  The publisher has the same ability to vet the advertisement that a subcontractor delivery, that a company has to vet the construction material when subcontracting the construction of a building. If publisher were held responsible, they would only deal with advertisement network that are held economically responsible if advertisement they deliver breaks the law. That mean higher costs, less revenue, but an end to the wild west we currently have. If I buy a paper based newspaper, the ads on those follow a very strict set of local laws. Each time an illegal ad is mistakenly printed, its news that other papers just love to write about. If I buy a online subscription, none of this laws are in place, and to the same large number of 9s-decimal places that you talk about, the illegal ads will be on the online version.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    This is patently false. We have zero ability to vet ads as a publisher without spinning up an entire as sales department larger than my entire company. The networks we use can and do vet the ads before serving them.

geocar 11y ago

"Holding networks responsible" sounds great, but the money chain isn't transparent, so whether you hold them responsible or not is irrelevant: Users hold you responsible if they see your URL and have a bad day. By the way, your website is down.

themartorana 11y ago
That's what I said - Forbes needs to hold the networks responsible. Obviously the consumer can't, and as I said in the edit, that doesn't absolve Forbes. Also I don't spend any time on my personal website these days. I haven't checked in on it in months...
- geocar 11y ago
  I wasn't disagreeing with you: Forbes absolutely should hold the networks responsible, because we hold Forbes responsible. However, the consumer can hold the networks responsible: they just install an ad blocker. :)

kpil 11y ago

But I don't get it? If i go to forbes.com and my computer is p0wned by some shit that they or their partners delivered, why are they not liable for damages? Isn't this a class action suit waiting to happen, or is it not applicable, because Internet?

DrScump 11y ago
why are they not liable for damages? The more relevant question is: how would you (or another random end user) prove that the malware was served through their, and only their, site?

manigandham 11y ago

There's also a subtle problem of mistrust in all this. Ad creatives have evolved from just simple banner images to more rich media but those files are relatively safe. The biggest problem is the explosion of javascript tags used for verification and analysis because a lack of trust and politics has led agencies/advertisers to require layers of external tracking. This requirement has forced ad networks to support 3rd party javascript tags - which is basically impossible to verify for security. If you can run javascript on a page, you can control that page. Fundamentally there needs to be more regulation, standards and actual enforcement to fix this.