3 ms·

Adblock can (and does) block ads that are not a part of an ad network. If you're thinking making publishers handle ads will bring them back to the "good ol' da

Adblock can (and does) block ads that are not a part of an ad network. If you're thinking making publishers handle ads will bring them back to the "good ol' days" of static print ads, you're mistaken. The only reason we haven't had these types of ads in the past is because the medium (print) didn't support it. 1. Most times, bad ads aren't written by the publishers at all-they are written by the advertiser. The flashing/movie/360/ugly ads are shown because they convert at a higher rate than "nice" ads. 2. Forcing publishers to run the ads would be even WORSE for for privacy since they would be considered "first-party" and have access to much more information. 3. Print publications that currently run ads don't even control 100% of the ad content. The only ones they control are the ones that look like text. Everything else is supplied by the advertiser.

anexprogrammer 11y ago
1. The ad network permits the bad ad, regardless of who writes them. If the ad network didn't drop 400 domains worth of 3rd party cookies, with tracking, and give me such shite as autoplaying video, maximise on rollover and the like, I'd whitelist them. Or more likely never have blocked them in the first place. 2. They'd not be able to follow me around the net though, repeatedly showing me some car ad I accidentally clicked because it maximised on me. 3. Every print display ad I've ever run (quite a few) has been proofed by the publication prior to run. I'm not Pepsi so perhaps different rules apply?
intrasight 11y ago
The medium (print) did support it. Why do screens not? One word - pornography. Porn invented the banner ad and introduced the paradigm of ads that link to other sites. Clearly that is a failed paradigm. Traditional advertising will make a comeback. Digital media will look like traditional media. We will look back on the current mess as an aberration instigated by pornographers. "First-party" ads are back to the future. Explain how they could possibly be worse for privacy?

anexprogrammer 11y ago

1. The ad network permits the bad ad, regardless of who writes them. If the ad network didn't drop 400 domains worth of 3rd party cookies, with tracking, and give me such shite as autoplaying video, maximise on rollover and the like, I'd whitelist them. Or more likely never have blocked them in the first place. 2. They'd not be able to follow me around the net though, repeatedly showing me some car ad I accidentally clicked because it maximised on me. 3. Every print display ad I've ever run (quite a few) has been proofed by the publication prior to run. I'm not Pepsi so perhaps different rules apply?

intrasight 11y ago

The medium (print) did support it. Why do screens not? One word - pornography. Porn invented the banner ad and introduced the paradigm of ads that link to other sites. Clearly that is a failed paradigm. Traditional advertising will make a comeback. Digital media will look like traditional media. We will look back on the current mess as an aberration instigated by pornographers. "First-party" ads are back to the future. Explain how they could possibly be worse for privacy?