5 ms·

When I loaded the BoingBoing version of the article my browser contacted 53 third-party domains and a grand total of 373 cookies were set. The BoingBoing priva

When I loaded the BoingBoing version of the article my browser contacted 53 third-party domains and a grand total of 373 cookies were set. The BoingBoing privacy policy does not mention "Do Not Track", usually a signal it is ignored, and it discloses nearly none of the third-parties. The cookie opt-out link goes to the NAI site which does not work on Safari because Safari won't allow the third-party cookies required to opt-out by the NAI. BoingBoing's privacy policy lists nine types of advertising, none of which are behavioral. The author of this article, Cory Doctorow, is an editor of BoingBoing and has some level of control of this. In contrast, I got zero tracking from the EFF site. Exact same content, completely different privacy experience. I'm not an absolutist that you can't criticize a system you benefit from (it's ok to criticize Apple's labour practices if you own an iPhone), but there is a big difference between admitting participation in a flawed system and passing yourself off as an objective critic of a system you benefit from. Doctorow knows where his paycheck comes from.

nolok 7y ago
Does that changes anything to the truth and validity of the points he is making, though ? Because if yes I would like to know what and how, and if no then this is an ad-hominem. Nobody said advertising wasn't paying the bills.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Yes it says boingboing are hypocrites and not the right people to spread this message. At the very least they could have used this as an opportunity to say “you may have noticed we have tons of tracking on this article, here’s why...”. There’s something to be said about being a trustworthy source.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    The capitalist will gladly sell you the rope you hang him with.
- theobeers 7y ago
  This is not ad hominem. It’s directly relevant. No attempt was made to avoid discussion of the issue at hand by attacking Doctorow. Let’s please keep our fallacies straight.
- tlibert 7y ago
  I actually think if he was more transparent the piece would have been significantly better. For example, "At BoingBoing we rely on these systems as well. Why? The simple fact is we have virtually no alternatives to the adtech status-quo and our choice is either to participate in the system as it is or go out of business. This is why I'm calling on likeminded publishers to...". Instead he passes himself off in a disingenuous way, and people reading his words could reasonably assume that his own site was perhaps better, when in reality it far exceeds the mean for the amount of tracking on a website.
chachachoney 7y ago
It is really hard to reconcile BoingBoing's behavior as a publisher with their content. This goes far beyond ad tracking. The BoingBoing store sells categories of products (insecure IOT disasters) that the site's editorial content rails against, and I've lost count of the number of cheap dollar store level knockoff products are pushed by the editorial staff in order to take advantage of amazon affiliate links. I've seen people banned, and have been banned myself for drawing attention to these things on their bulletin boards. >> I'm not an absolutist that you can't criticize a system you benefit from (it's ok to criticize Apple's labour practices if you own an iPhone), but there is a big difference between admitting participation in a flawed system and passing yourself off as an objective critic of a system you benefit from. Exactly. Also, given the site's legacy, political slant, and access to technical talent, if they don't choose to explore ethical modes and models of behavior and publishing, what hope should we have for the rest of the industry? (The only positive thing one can say about BoingBoing on these matters is that they do not block ad blockers.)
komali2 7y ago
I emailed him about this, and his response was essentially, it's not within the ability of publishers and their writers to get rid of these kinds of ads. Pop up ads went away because the consumers worked around them - that's why advertisers stopped demanding publishers put them on their sites. So, wanna get rid of tracking cookies, continue as a consumer to block them and make them pointless. Advertisers will then stop demanding BoingBoing uses them.
- chachachoney 7y ago
  >> it's not within the ability of publishers and their writers to get rid of these kinds of ads Sounds like a failure of imagination.
  - komali2 7y ago
    Sure, but it's not what got rid of pop up ads.

nolok 7y ago

Does that changes anything to the truth and validity of the points he is making, though ? Because if yes I would like to know what and how, and if no then this is an ad-hominem. Nobody said advertising wasn't paying the bills.

malvosenior 7y ago
Yes it says boingboing are hypocrites and not the right people to spread this message. At the very least they could have used this as an opportunity to say “you may have noticed we have tons of tracking on this article, here’s why...”. There’s something to be said about being a trustworthy source.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The capitalist will gladly sell you the rope you hang him with.
theobeers 7y ago
This is not ad hominem. It’s directly relevant. No attempt was made to avoid discussion of the issue at hand by attacking Doctorow. Let’s please keep our fallacies straight.
tlibert 7y ago
I actually think if he was more transparent the piece would have been significantly better. For example, "At BoingBoing we rely on these systems as well. Why? The simple fact is we have virtually no alternatives to the adtech status-quo and our choice is either to participate in the system as it is or go out of business. This is why I'm calling on likeminded publishers to...". Instead he passes himself off in a disingenuous way, and people reading his words could reasonably assume that his own site was perhaps better, when in reality it far exceeds the mean for the amount of tracking on a website.

chachachoney 7y ago

It is really hard to reconcile BoingBoing's behavior as a publisher with their content. This goes far beyond ad tracking. The BoingBoing store sells categories of products (insecure IOT disasters) that the site's editorial content rails against, and I've lost count of the number of cheap dollar store level knockoff products are pushed by the editorial staff in order to take advantage of amazon affiliate links. I've seen people banned, and have been banned myself for drawing attention to these things on their bulletin boards. >> I'm not an absolutist that you can't criticize a system you benefit from (it's ok to criticize Apple's labour practices if you own an iPhone), but there is a big difference between admitting participation in a flawed system and passing yourself off as an objective critic of a system you benefit from. Exactly. Also, given the site's legacy, political slant, and access to technical talent, if they don't choose to explore ethical modes and models of behavior and publishing, what hope should we have for the rest of the industry? (The only positive thing one can say about BoingBoing on these matters is that they do not block ad blockers.)

komali2 7y ago

I emailed him about this, and his response was essentially, it's not within the ability of publishers and their writers to get rid of these kinds of ads. Pop up ads went away because the consumers worked around them - that's why advertisers stopped demanding publishers put them on their sites. So, wanna get rid of tracking cookies, continue as a consumer to block them and make them pointless. Advertisers will then stop demanding BoingBoing uses them.

chachachoney 7y ago
>> it's not within the ability of publishers and their writers to get rid of these kinds of ads Sounds like a failure of imagination.
- komali2 7y ago
  Sure, but it's not what got rid of pop up ads.