4 ms·

People who do their own server-side advertising tend to be far pickier and much more careful with what ads they use. They tend not to do instant auctions, and t

by Kalium 8y ago

People who do their own server-side advertising tend to be far pickier and much more careful with what ads they use. They tend not to do instant auctions, and tend towards newspaper-style ads. Does this render them immune to malvertising? As you imply, it by no means does so. You're completely correct. It might, however, reduce the chances by a non-zero amount as compared to a third party executing arbitrary code in their client as blessed by you. But, none of that is important. I think the most important lesson here is that nobody has a right to a given business model. No website, big or small, has a fundamental right to generate revenue based on advertising. Advertising may be essential to some business models, but those business models are not essential to anything.

manigandham 8y ago
> fundamental right to generate revenue based on advertising. What? Who's talking about rights here? Especially to a business model? That's a strange interpretation and companies are free to do what they want. Advertising is itself a business model, and marketing (of which advertising is a subset) is critical to the commercial success of pretty much every corporation that exists. The biggest issue with directly negotiated ad campaigns is scale. Unless you are a major publisher, no advertiser is going to spend time dealing with small buys across multiple small sites, which is the whole point of small sites using ad networks that can aggregate and streamline demand and optimize yield. Also much of that 3rd party javascript is for measurement. Digital ads require accurate metrics and the industry won't be going back to blind buys with no visibility and only the publishers promise.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  The point of small sites using ad networks is for ad networks to make a lot of money on many small sites in aggregate. The amount of money each small site gains from this is tiny and unimportant.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    That's because they're a small site. Earnings are proportional to value in traffic and audience. Small sites do not make big money.
- Kalium 8y ago
  > That's a strange interpretation and companies are free to do what they want. You are absolutely correct! Companies are free to do as they see fit. And consumers are free to do things like block ads or not engage with publishers as they see fit. I've run content sites that ran on advertising. I've negotiated with advertisers. I deeply, genuinely understand the value ad networks provide to publishers. As a consumer, and as an responsible professional software engineer, I am also concerned with the privacy practices and abuse enabled by many third-party inclusions. More than one website has been compromised by such things. If buyers choose not to do direct buys, then publishers wish to consider the possibilities that could be realized with a different model that doesn't hinge on being cavalier with user privacy and security. No commercial internet publisher has a right to exist. No commercial internet publisher has a right to derive revenue from abusing their users. Users, on the other hand, have in the eyes of some basic rights to security and privacy. As opposed to the desire of marketing to use a fifth shitty third-party tracker. You're right. Publishers and advertisers are free to do as they wish. They just might want to consider showing some respect for users is all.

by Kalium 8y ago

manigandham 8y ago

> fundamental right to generate revenue based on advertising. What? Who's talking about rights here? Especially to a business model? That's a strange interpretation and companies are free to do what they want. Advertising is itself a business model, and marketing (of which advertising is a subset) is critical to the commercial success of pretty much every corporation that exists. The biggest issue with directly negotiated ad campaigns is scale. Unless you are a major publisher, no advertiser is going to spend time dealing with small buys across multiple small sites, which is the whole point of small sites using ad networks that can aggregate and streamline demand and optimize yield. Also much of that 3rd party javascript is for measurement. Digital ads require accurate metrics and the industry won't be going back to blind buys with no visibility and only the publishers promise.

zzzcpan 8y ago
The point of small sites using ad networks is for ad networks to make a lot of money on many small sites in aggregate. The amount of money each small site gains from this is tiny and unimportant.
- manigandham 8y ago
  That's because they're a small site. Earnings are proportional to value in traffic and audience. Small sites do not make big money.
Kalium 8y ago
> That's a strange interpretation and companies are free to do what they want. You are absolutely correct! Companies are free to do as they see fit. And consumers are free to do things like block ads or not engage with publishers as they see fit. I've run content sites that ran on advertising. I've negotiated with advertisers. I deeply, genuinely understand the value ad networks provide to publishers. As a consumer, and as an responsible professional software engineer, I am also concerned with the privacy practices and abuse enabled by many third-party inclusions. More than one website has been compromised by such things. If buyers choose not to do direct buys, then publishers wish to consider the possibilities that could be realized with a different model that doesn't hinge on being cavalier with user privacy and security. No commercial internet publisher has a right to exist. No commercial internet publisher has a right to derive revenue from abusing their users. Users, on the other hand, have in the eyes of some basic rights to security and privacy. As opposed to the desire of marketing to use a fifth shitty third-party tracker. You're right. Publishers and advertisers are free to do as they wish. They just might want to consider showing some respect for users is all.