4 ms·

Sites bemoan ad blockers but then take no responsibility for the ads that are shown. That needs to change - it’s not like print advertising.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Change or not, I think the trend is not to trust ads anymore. I question whether or not it’s feasible in the long term to sustain a model based on tracking people, selling their data, and calling that “advertising.” Oh and if you want to see what CNN is crapping out without the cruft, lite.cnn.io works well.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  Surveillance is not advertising.
  - DannyB2 8y ago
    I can hear them responding with something like: Surveillance is helpful information gathering and customer profiling in order to understand customer needs better. This enables us to put more relevant ads in front of your eyes. It also helps us to understand when is most convenient to sneak in the middle of the night and harvest your and your family's vital organs, as permitted by the service agreement you signed.
SpaceGorilla 8y ago
Right? Imagine IRL advertising that would break into your house and put up advertising posters or plant listening devices.
- smudgymcscmudge 8y ago
  I don’t think I would like that at all.
- dwild 8y ago
  Seems more taking a plant to your house while knowing it will listen to you, while there is plant that won't listen to you but that you have to pay for. That listening device is the cost of the plant... don't like it? Then pay to avoid it... It's that simple, there's no alternative. They have to pay to make that content and send it to you. If it's not advertising that pay for it, that cash won't appear out of thin air. Someone needs to pay for it and if it's not an advertiser that does, it needs to be you. There's plenty of news agency that offer paid membership without ads, go for them. There's plenty of people that can't afford to pay or that just doesn't have the means to. I remember the amount of content I was able to learn because advertising was subsidizing it. My parent were sadly against paying on the internet and I'm far from being the only one that learned that way.
curiousgal 8y ago
We couldn't even trust them to not play sound blasting ads at 1am let alone with this.
microdrum 8y ago
Google's monopoly status means it fulfills 90+% of the ads. I can guarantee you that CNN has no control. There is no competition. So, erm, maybe the onus is on Google?
- mikeash 8y ago
  Surely a company as big as CNN can run their own ad service instead of contracting it out. Do they pass the buck like this for ads on their TV channel?
  - j-c-hewitt 8y ago
    They probably do run it. Just they are looking for the highest paying ads that don't have a boob in them or a penis. If the highest paying ad is a keylogger, that's generally not what they're looking for when they're filtering it out.
- lolsal 8y ago
  CNN absolutely has control. CNN could vote with their dollars and use a different ad platform.
  - microdrum 8y ago
    Which other ad server and ad intermediation service would you recommend?
    - lolsal 8y ago
      I don't know, I'm not in the business of specifying and choosing ad services.
      - microdrum 8y ago
        I think you could name multiple competitive players in lots of areas that aren't your core business. You can't name any others in ad services because Google is a monopolist.
p49k 8y ago
Bad ads appear with every ad network, and ad networks are lazy to stop it because they know that sites will take all the blame (your comment is a great example). Pop into /r/adops sometime (or the associated slack channel) and watch site owners working nonstop to try to find a solution to this problem. It's mostly a game of whack-a-mole at this point with no real long-term solution in sight.
dahart 8y ago
> Sites bemoan ad blockers but then take no responsibility fo the ads that are show. That needs to change - it’s not like print advertising. It has been changing and improving for years. Your statement is true for the ad content for sure. (Though sites do take flack for inappropriate ad content, just like print publications have.) This is irrelevant to the OP’s link, though, since it’s not a keylogger and keyloggers aren’t actually possible. Ads are subject to the security rules imposed by the browser, and for the most part every abuse that ads have attempted have been shut down. Sometimes not as fast as we’d like, I admit, but for the most part I think the system is working. Ads can no longer play audio, they can’t see data passing between me and the site they’re embedded into, they can’t abuse popups anymore, etc., etc.. Every time an advertiser comes up with some new annoying way to try and get extra attention, the good folks designing the web and making the browsers patch the hole. I like that the web standards and browsers, and laws to some extent, are where the responsibility lies, and I wouldn’t want to have individual sites taking responsibility for the security of ads. As for bemoaning ad blockers, at least keep in mind the ads in ad-supported free content is their revenue stream, and that the majority of ads aren’t malicious. Personally, I’d love to see a better free business model than ad-supported free content. In the mean time, paying directly for ad-free content, and putting up with ads are our main options.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago

Change or not, I think the trend is not to trust ads anymore. I question whether or not it’s feasible in the long term to sustain a model based on tracking people, selling their data, and calling that “advertising.” Oh and if you want to see what CNN is crapping out without the cruft, lite.cnn.io works well.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
Surveillance is not advertising.
- DannyB2 8y ago
  I can hear them responding with something like: Surveillance is helpful information gathering and customer profiling in order to understand customer needs better. This enables us to put more relevant ads in front of your eyes. It also helps us to understand when is most convenient to sneak in the middle of the night and harvest your and your family's vital organs, as permitted by the service agreement you signed.

SpaceGorilla 8y ago

Right? Imagine IRL advertising that would break into your house and put up advertising posters or plant listening devices.

smudgymcscmudge 8y ago
I don’t think I would like that at all.
dwild 8y ago
Seems more taking a plant to your house while knowing it will listen to you, while there is plant that won't listen to you but that you have to pay for. That listening device is the cost of the plant... don't like it? Then pay to avoid it... It's that simple, there's no alternative. They have to pay to make that content and send it to you. If it's not advertising that pay for it, that cash won't appear out of thin air. Someone needs to pay for it and if it's not an advertiser that does, it needs to be you. There's plenty of news agency that offer paid membership without ads, go for them. There's plenty of people that can't afford to pay or that just doesn't have the means to. I remember the amount of content I was able to learn because advertising was subsidizing it. My parent were sadly against paying on the internet and I'm far from being the only one that learned that way.

curiousgal 8y ago

We couldn't even trust them to not play sound blasting ads at 1am let alone with this.

microdrum 8y ago

Google's monopoly status means it fulfills 90+% of the ads. I can guarantee you that CNN has no control. There is no competition. So, erm, maybe the onus is on Google?

mikeash 8y ago
Surely a company as big as CNN can run their own ad service instead of contracting it out. Do they pass the buck like this for ads on their TV channel?
- j-c-hewitt 8y ago
  They probably do run it. Just they are looking for the highest paying ads that don't have a boob in them or a penis. If the highest paying ad is a keylogger, that's generally not what they're looking for when they're filtering it out.
lolsal 8y ago
CNN absolutely has control. CNN could vote with their dollars and use a different ad platform.
- microdrum 8y ago
  Which other ad server and ad intermediation service would you recommend?
  - lolsal 8y ago
    I don't know, I'm not in the business of specifying and choosing ad services.
    - microdrum 8y ago
      I think you could name multiple competitive players in lots of areas that aren't your core business. You can't name any others in ad services because Google is a monopolist.

p49k 8y ago

Bad ads appear with every ad network, and ad networks are lazy to stop it because they know that sites will take all the blame (your comment is a great example). Pop into /r/adops sometime (or the associated slack channel) and watch site owners working nonstop to try to find a solution to this problem. It's mostly a game of whack-a-mole at this point with no real long-term solution in sight.

dahart 8y ago

> Sites bemoan ad blockers but then take no responsibility fo the ads that are show. That needs to change - it’s not like print advertising. It has been changing and improving for years. Your statement is true for the ad content for sure. (Though sites do take flack for inappropriate ad content, just like print publications have.) This is irrelevant to the OP’s link, though, since it’s not a keylogger and keyloggers aren’t actually possible. Ads are subject to the security rules imposed by the browser, and for the most part every abuse that ads have attempted have been shut down. Sometimes not as fast as we’d like, I admit, but for the most part I think the system is working. Ads can no longer play audio, they can’t see data passing between me and the site they’re embedded into, they can’t abuse popups anymore, etc., etc.. Every time an advertiser comes up with some new annoying way to try and get extra attention, the good folks designing the web and making the browsers patch the hole. I like that the web standards and browsers, and laws to some extent, are where the responsibility lies, and I wouldn’t want to have individual sites taking responsibility for the security of ads. As for bemoaning ad blockers, at least keep in mind the ads in ad-supported free content is their revenue stream, and that the majority of ads aren’t malicious. Personally, I’d love to see a better free business model than ad-supported free content. In the mean time, paying directly for ad-free content, and putting up with ads are our main options.