3 ms·

How is it different when ads are served from server side? Most sites (especially smaller ones) would still use an ad network, because they don't have their own

How is it different when ads are served from server side? Most sites (especially smaller ones) would still use an ad network, because they don't have their own resources to find advertisers, which it calls from server side to retrieve the ad. And when the retireved ad code is injected into the page on server side it could still lead to some malicious site or whatever.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
I suppose it would be easier to sue such site's operator, as malware is suddenly served directly from first-party. Thus, creating a strong incentive for site operators to actually curate their ad experience, instead of subscribing to whatever network is most profitable any given day.
- dmortin 8y ago
  So this would again hurt the little guys (blogs, forums, smaller sites managed by 1 or 2 people) who don't have the capacity to find advertisers and curate ads, and for this reason, have to use an ad network. The big sites, facebook and co. can easily do some curation and find advertisers, so as it was mentioned before these changes would only eliminate the small players while further concentrating the web into the hands of the big guys.
  - acdha 8y ago
    It already does. This would increase the incentive not to switch to some claiming to offer slightly higher payouts and hope that they’re not cutting corners.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    If your question is "Are we as a society willing to sacrifice the income of some small sites to keep users from being infected and having their privacy invaded?", then you may wish to contemplate the possibility that a lot of people might just say "Yes".
    - dmortin 8y ago
      No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? If the answer is no then there must be a feasible, scalable alternative for small players before we eliminate the current ad based model, otherwise the little guys will die and all we have will be huge media sites pushing their own agendas without small, independent publishers having a chance of standing up to them. That is the dilemma.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        > No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? Herein lies the catch: you have correctly and properly identified a potential side-effect. The question, I think, is this: how many users and how much privacy are we willing to sacrifice for this precious, wonderful, beloved, amazing side-effect? I know my answer, and I see no dilemma at all. The horrific outcome you so rightly point to is not an ideal outcome, in isolation. At the same time, there's never a guarantee that there must be some convenient alternative. The wish for a thing does not conjure it into being, or even prove that it is possible. And in this case, some might decide that our beloved side-effect isn't as important as some other things. Though I understand if some prefer to see the security and privacy of users as something to be traded off against for financial convenience.
        dmortin 8y ago
        The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I'm saying that we must find a balance where we have some of both. Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer.
        8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

I suppose it would be easier to sue such site's operator, as malware is suddenly served directly from first-party. Thus, creating a strong incentive for site operators to actually curate their ad experience, instead of subscribing to whatever network is most profitable any given day.

dmortin 8y ago
So this would again hurt the little guys (blogs, forums, smaller sites managed by 1 or 2 people) who don't have the capacity to find advertisers and curate ads, and for this reason, have to use an ad network. The big sites, facebook and co. can easily do some curation and find advertisers, so as it was mentioned before these changes would only eliminate the small players while further concentrating the web into the hands of the big guys.
- acdha 8y ago
  It already does. This would increase the incentive not to switch to some claiming to offer slightly higher payouts and hope that they’re not cutting corners.
- Kalium 8y ago
  If your question is "Are we as a society willing to sacrifice the income of some small sites to keep users from being infected and having their privacy invaded?", then you may wish to contemplate the possibility that a lot of people might just say "Yes".
  - dmortin 8y ago
    No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? If the answer is no then there must be a feasible, scalable alternative for small players before we eliminate the current ad based model, otherwise the little guys will die and all we have will be huge media sites pushing their own agendas without small, independent publishers having a chance of standing up to them. That is the dilemma.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > No, the question is: do we want more and more content concentrated into the hands of big players, eliminating little, independent publishers? Do we want this? Herein lies the catch: you have correctly and properly identified a potential side-effect. The question, I think, is this: how many users and how much privacy are we willing to sacrifice for this precious, wonderful, beloved, amazing side-effect? I know my answer, and I see no dilemma at all. The horrific outcome you so rightly point to is not an ideal outcome, in isolation. At the same time, there's never a guarantee that there must be some convenient alternative. The wish for a thing does not conjure it into being, or even prove that it is possible. And in this case, some might decide that our beloved side-effect isn't as important as some other things. Though I understand if some prefer to see the security and privacy of users as something to be traded off against for financial convenience.
      - dmortin 8y ago
        The danger of possible outlets for alternative voices controlled more and more by big corporations is at least as bad as the privacy implications. So there must be a tradeoff if we wan't privacy, but we also want to have publishing outlets independent of big corporations. There is currently no perfect solution where we can have total privacy and also little publishers can sustain themselves. I'm saying that we must find a balance where we have some of both. Having 100% of one while giving up the other is not the answer.
        8y ago