7 ms·

There is no shortage of good reasons to block ads. Passive ads no longer exist, if they ever did. They are all actively exploiting, tracking, and selling you- e

• jpollock 7y ago
  Blocking ads won't stop your info from being shared during the auction. That's a back end data transfer.
  • _Understated_ 7y ago
    That's true but it will really limit what information they can gather from you in the first place. For example, the article mentions they knew about browsing habits but that wouldn't be the case if they couldn't see you. I suppose it comes down to "we have the data, so let's use it"... we need to stop the mass-gathering in the first place then these "bugs" are meaningless.
  • move-on-by 7y ago
    You are correct, that is why I point out that regulation is the solution. Blocking what ads we can in the mean time is just a small way we - as unwilling users - can show that we are are unhappy with the way things currently are.
  • dylan604 7y ago
    Depends on the block really. If you are using a blocker that just removes it from the UI, then yes the auction is still occurring. If you are blocking the JS code from even executing, then no data is transmitted. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding things, if the code doesn't run, then nothing happens.
    • x0x0 7y ago
      For 3rd party ads, that is sometimes correct. What blocking js does is prevent cookie stitching, ie the joining of the first party id with the 3rd party cookie id. This is necessary for external ad networks. Twitter runs mostly their own ads afaik, so they don't face this problem.
    • mceachen 7y ago
      It depends on the site. For example, a Twitter timeline or Google search engine result page only needs the https request for the auction to take place, as the ads are mixed into the first-party response. Third-party ads inserted via javascript behave as you describe. Blocking third-party cookies (by using ublock origin or a pi-hole or firefox) helps prevent more actors from observing your online activity, but simply by being in the ad auction, third parties can get a lot of indirect information (via real-time bidding, or RTB).
    • zeta0134 7y ago
      This is why I run uBlock Origin, which blocks the ad-tracking code at the network level. Pretty much anything in a third-party iframe doesn't even get to load from the server; the browser simply doesn't make the request. Doesn't stop anything the origin runs, but most origins don't; the third party embeds are generally the biggest threat. This is also why Twitter having problems is such a big deal; as far as I'm aware, Twitter is serving their own ad-tracking code, rather than a third-party's code. Thus, it's harder to block completely, and any vulnerabilities might (somewhat) affect even users that are running privacy extensions.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • dx034 7y ago
    With ublock origin, none of the code gets executed. As it also blocks Analytics, you're effectively invisible to most.
• celticmusic 7y ago
  I'm an american who is not on twitter. We have these things called news outlets, newspapers, and so forth. Apparently these places take an interest in what the president does. weird, I know...
  • slips 7y ago
    Are you saying Americans can live without seeing the president rant on Twitter? I wonder if I can do my own research that's greater than 140 characters...
    • cronix 7y ago
      Americans can, the American media can't (which is WHY he does it lol).
  • ncallaway 7y ago
    A) Almost all websites from newspapers and other outlets have many of the same advertising problems on them. In fact, I would imagine sites like twitter have more control over the ads placed on them than many websites for local papers. B) Whenever announcements or tweets or other newsworthy events are reported in the paper, I still like to go to the primary source to get the full context. So, the solution you propose really is an incomplete solution that doesn't address the problem.
    • move-on-by 7y ago
      Thank you, this is the point of my comment above. Also, many of the small announcements made by schools, police departments, parks, utilities, etc are not considered newsworthy and so Twitter or Facebook is literally the only source of that information.
      • computronus 7y ago
        Some of these entities - schools and utilities, I'd say - can't assume that those they serve all have internet access, so relying only on Twitter or Facebook isn't enough. My local school system, for example, issues important announcements by those means (so I hear - I'm not on either system), but also recorded voice calls and texts, to ensure the message gets out somehow. If they post information only on Twitter ... well, it's not that important. I bet some of us lose perspective on the relative importance of messages when they are coming in from all directions.
• cronix 7y ago
  All I ever hear is the media reporting what Trump says on Twitter. It's not like you have to actually be on it to know.
• stemuk 7y ago
  I believe one essential step in the right direction would be to create an ad platform that allows companies to create and developers to show truly passive ads. To specify what I mean: Display a jpeg with the advertisement and link it to a website using a referral ID in the URL. This referral ID would obviously only be a vague indicator of success, but I believe that even though targeted advertising might be more effective, there is a market for 'universal advertising' (for commodities most people use like toothpaste, cars or breakfast cereal). The revenue model might be slightly different from platforms like AdSense, where instead of paying per 1M impressions you would maybe choose a newspaper like model where the advertiser pays a fixed price depending on the property that displays the ad. And the cherry on top: All of this would be GDPR compliant right out of the box, so no hour-long fiddling with the ToS agreement.
  • AlexandrB 7y ago
    This has already been done and failed: http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/
  • stevesearer 7y ago
    While not a platform, my site sells and hosts our own advertisements which are only static images and are sold per month. We've been doing this for the last 5 years or so and it seems to work well for our advertisers. Selling advertisements based on impressions incentivizes publishers to maximize impressions through various means such as click-bait titles, auto-refreshing ads while you're on the page, or implementing slideshows. All of these things degrade a website's experience in the long-term for the sake of ekeing out a few more dollars in the short term.
• msla 7y ago
  > Some might say, "Stop using twitter", but how is any American supposed to do that when the President of the United States uses it as his platform? I don't use Twitter, and your reasoning is a complete non-sequitur. I don't play golf, and the President plays lots of it. How is that possible? By... my not playing golf.
  • sieabahlpark 7y ago
    What the president says on Twitter affects me or the world, whether or not he uses a 9 iron or a driver to get the ball out of the sand trap does not. You can't even conflate the two. Twitter is his method of communicating to us. He doesn't use the media like previous president's.
    • dantillberg 7y ago
      I don't use Twitter, yet I still hear what the President says on Twitter.
      • sieabahlpark 7y ago
        Anecdotal evidence doesn't exactly sway my opinion all that strong. Just because you can get it elsewhere doesn't mean that the source you're getting it from isn't biased one way or another.
    • dspillett 7y ago
      > What the president says on Twitter affects me or the world But will be widely reported in every other media channel anyway, so you lose little or nothing by using Twitter directly. In fact, you might gain a little useful filtering, depending on your range of new outlet choices of course, and conversely there is a sort of reverse filter because you are less likely to miss things that are rather quickly deleted.
      • sieabahlpark 7y ago
        There's no harm in combining outlets but the media has historically skewed what they report for ratings. It's a business like every other. I guess we all must have forgotten just how bad the reporting was in 2016 with his <1% chance of winning. I'll take a more direct source than one that is linked through a web of news sites so it's impossible to find the original source. "Experts say" Twitter whether you like it or not is Trump's primary communication to the US public.
• clairity 7y ago
  > "...but how is any American supposed to do that when the President of the United States uses it as his platform?" you really have to understand twitter as trump's personal marketing/branding channel, not a presidential communications platform. it's safe to ignore. anything of import will be released through a myriad of other media.
  • ianlevesque 7y ago
    Given that there was a court ruling recently that the president cannot block people on Twitter, I think the stature of those communications is more significant than you make out.
    • msla 7y ago
      Much less significant, you mean. He can't block anyone, so the news will report on anything important, meaning nobody has to use Twitter to see what he posts.
      • ianlevesque 7y ago
        Not being able to read the president's public statements directly is ok now? I don't, because they're abhorrent, but what about the next one? This is the era we are in now.
        • sjaknanxnnx 7y ago
          The post you responded to said the president can’t block people, so yes you’re able to read his posts. The only thing stopping you ought to be your desire to maintain sanity.
        • duckMuppet 7y ago
          I don't think you're understanding the point clairity was making.. Trump generally uses Twitter to fire up his base and give the other side something to stew over. It's pretty well documented most of the garbage he spews on there has little basis in reality. But... Want to slip in an extra 500 mil in funding for planned parenthood or fund a new surveillance program without raising eyebrows? Simply make a xenophobic comment or say something vague enough that the press spend the next week making fools of themselves while his base just can't get enough napkins to clean themselves up.. Obama got that trick down too, just send the press release on Friday at about 8pm. By the time Monday rolls around, nobody cares. The tactic has worked out really well for trump as well. He's actually been pretty milquetoast, even moderately more progressive in comparison with other similar democrats such as Bill Clinton or JFK policy wise. He's also done a pretty good number on dismantling What's left of the tea party conservatives or republicans who espouse the ideas of limiting and reducing government, Not just reducing taxes without reducing govt. He's essentially transforming the Republican party into the Democrat party of the 80's. All this because people love their narratives, orange man bad or Cheeto Jesus saves
• bulldoa 7y ago
  i am not questioning the intent, but I just wonder how would one support content creators besides donating money?
• riffic 7y ago
  >Some might say, "Stop using twitter", but how is any American supposed to do that when the President of the United States uses it as his platform? Ask your lawmakers to require public agencies and officials to run their own social media infrastructure based on implementations of open standards.