4 ms·

What exactly is the problem with first-party ads? This is what the general consensus was - to move towards ads that were delivered directly by the publisher tha

What exactly is the problem with first-party ads? This is what the general consensus was - to move towards ads that were delivered directly by the publisher that you had a connection to instead of 3rd-party networks. At some point, you have to admit that you just want the content for free.

ATsch 7y ago
They aren't, though. It's simply a CNAME alias to a third party ad and tracking provider.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Publishers aren't going to build their own ad software. This is no different than running wordpress. The issue is data and privacy, and first-party means it's a much more direct relationship with the site you're on.
sigwinch28 7y ago
The way I read it, the discussion is about third-party ads which are disguised as first-party ads by using CNAME DNS records, so that `totallyfirstpartyads.mywebsite.com` is actually just referring to `serveads.thirdpartyadcompany.com`. More than that, random subdomains are used to subvert adblockers. To me, it seems that the discussion is about third-party ads which are masquerading as first-party content. It's not about first-party ads or whether the content should be free, but about third-party advertisers pretending to be first-party.
- manigandham 7y ago
  There's no such thing as pretending to be first-party. All ads are going to be served through a service/software provider the same way sites run on Wordpress or use a CDN. The data relationship changes with first-party serving because it's now isolated to that site.
  - sigwinch28 7y ago
    > The data relationship changes with first-party serving because it's now isolated to that site. Except that when you decide to point to someone else's domain via a DNS CNAME on your own domain, you open the door to cookies, referrer information, and more being leaked to the third party. Whether it's intentional or not, I think it's a bad thing to do. Oh, and opens the door for malicious cross-domain scripting if the CDN you're CNAME'ing gets compromised.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      That's the same as the ISP, CDN, CMS, and plenty of other software and vendors in the middle getting access to that information. There's a difference between a service provider and data ownership.
      - sigwinch28 7y ago
        > That's the same as the ISP, CDN, CMS, and plenty of other software and vendors in the middle getting access to that information. I don't think it's the same. At least with HTTPS (or even the use of VPNs, DNS over HTTPS, and the upcoming/proposed encrypted SNI), the ISPs won't have any metadata except the IP headers, which I think is a good rebalancing. There's no requirement for the CMS to be hosted by a third party. Joomla, Drupal, Wordpress, etc. are all popular self-hosted solutions. The CDN typically does not have all the information, either: a CDN's job is (often, but not always) to deliver media assets (images, videos, audio), large files (e.g. ISOs, executables), or to deliver things like fonts or javascript libraries. These things are (again, often, but not always) supplied from a different domain. My browser, for example, doesn't send referer headers when dealing with these sites, and it definitely doesn't send any cookies which aren't set for the CDN's domain explicitly. Different amounts of information leak when you CNAME to a CDN on your own domain, or you load third party advertising scripts in a page. To me, at least, there's a difference between a third party (such as a CDN or ISP) knowing what domain I was on, versus third-party advertising scripts getting their hands on my detailed browser information by (ab)using JavaScript APIs and extensive fingerprinting. > There's a difference between a service provider and data ownership. Can you elaborate? I don't think I understand this point. For example, under the GDPR where I live, I have rights to data which I produced, regardless of the service provider or the domain it's delivered on.
disintegore 7y ago
> What exactly is the problem with first-party ads? The problem is that they're ads. > At some point, you have to admit that you just want the content for free. I understand it's a bit of an ethical conundrum. Quality content and/or service requires compensation. At the same time, advertisement is a form of harassment and intellectual terrorism and they make content undemocratic by nature. Altering your own software in order to see NO ads of any kind under any circumstances is perfectly justifiable. With that said, I don't buy the myth of the struggling internet entrepreneur being unable to make ends meet because of the selfish adblock users. I think that's as ridiculous a notion as the idea that Napster could kill independent musicians. Fact of the matter is that ads are a form of revenue and there are healthy alternatives out there. For instance, instead of giving away an infinitesimal fraction of our mental health to every single internet business, we can instead enter a social contract in which everything is free, and consumers are expected to pay into the channels and services that they like best. This is, for instance, how many Podcasts and non-advertiser-friendly Youtube channels work.
- manigandham 7y ago
  "Intellectual terrorism"? This makes no sense. Using this kind of extremist language doesn't help. > "healthy alternatives out there" That's the real myth. You either pay for content up front (by going to work, getting paid in cash, and using that cash) or you see some ads (which convert your attention to payments in real-time on demand for exactly what you're consuming). For billions of people, ads are faster, easier, more passive and more fair. Donations are not a scalable business. Podcasts are in an advertiser boom and are making record amounts of money from ads so I'm not sure why you used that example. Very few (if any) channels of size are completely user-supported.
  - disintegore 7y ago
    "Intellectual terrorism" is indeed pretty extreme, and the term only applies to some segments of the industry. However that's exactly how I would describe the effect that fashion & beauty advertising have on women and men to a lesser extent. None of the podcasts I listen to contain any kind of advertisement of any kind. This is not difficult to explain; prudent businesses typically do not stray very far outside the Overton window. This form of media exists - flourishes - because of listener patronage. > Donations are not a scalable business. True, but it's a viable business model. If you want something that scales as high as your entrepreneurial ambitions, consider that 100 million people pay Spotify in order to not have to listen to ads.

ATsch 7y ago

They aren't, though. It's simply a CNAME alias to a third party ad and tracking provider.

manigandham 7y ago
Publishers aren't going to build their own ad software. This is no different than running wordpress. The issue is data and privacy, and first-party means it's a much more direct relationship with the site you're on.

sigwinch28 7y ago

The way I read it, the discussion is about third-party ads which are disguised as first-party ads by using CNAME DNS records, so that `totallyfirstpartyads.mywebsite.com` is actually just referring to `serveads.thirdpartyadcompany.com`. More than that, random subdomains are used to subvert adblockers. To me, it seems that the discussion is about third-party ads which are masquerading as first-party content. It's not about first-party ads or whether the content should be free, but about third-party advertisers pretending to be first-party.

manigandham 7y ago
There's no such thing as pretending to be first-party. All ads are going to be served through a service/software provider the same way sites run on Wordpress or use a CDN. The data relationship changes with first-party serving because it's now isolated to that site.
- sigwinch28 7y ago
  > The data relationship changes with first-party serving because it's now isolated to that site. Except that when you decide to point to someone else's domain via a DNS CNAME on your own domain, you open the door to cookies, referrer information, and more being leaked to the third party. Whether it's intentional or not, I think it's a bad thing to do. Oh, and opens the door for malicious cross-domain scripting if the CDN you're CNAME'ing gets compromised.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That's the same as the ISP, CDN, CMS, and plenty of other software and vendors in the middle getting access to that information. There's a difference between a service provider and data ownership.
    - sigwinch28 7y ago
      > That's the same as the ISP, CDN, CMS, and plenty of other software and vendors in the middle getting access to that information. I don't think it's the same. At least with HTTPS (or even the use of VPNs, DNS over HTTPS, and the upcoming/proposed encrypted SNI), the ISPs won't have any metadata except the IP headers, which I think is a good rebalancing. There's no requirement for the CMS to be hosted by a third party. Joomla, Drupal, Wordpress, etc. are all popular self-hosted solutions. The CDN typically does not have all the information, either: a CDN's job is (often, but not always) to deliver media assets (images, videos, audio), large files (e.g. ISOs, executables), or to deliver things like fonts or javascript libraries. These things are (again, often, but not always) supplied from a different domain. My browser, for example, doesn't send referer headers when dealing with these sites, and it definitely doesn't send any cookies which aren't set for the CDN's domain explicitly. Different amounts of information leak when you CNAME to a CDN on your own domain, or you load third party advertising scripts in a page. To me, at least, there's a difference between a third party (such as a CDN or ISP) knowing what domain I was on, versus third-party advertising scripts getting their hands on my detailed browser information by (ab)using JavaScript APIs and extensive fingerprinting. > There's a difference between a service provider and data ownership. Can you elaborate? I don't think I understand this point. For example, under the GDPR where I live, I have rights to data which I produced, regardless of the service provider or the domain it's delivered on.

disintegore 7y ago

> What exactly is the problem with first-party ads? The problem is that they're ads. > At some point, you have to admit that you just want the content for free. I understand it's a bit of an ethical conundrum. Quality content and/or service requires compensation. At the same time, advertisement is a form of harassment and intellectual terrorism and they make content undemocratic by nature. Altering your own software in order to see NO ads of any kind under any circumstances is perfectly justifiable. With that said, I don't buy the myth of the struggling internet entrepreneur being unable to make ends meet because of the selfish adblock users. I think that's as ridiculous a notion as the idea that Napster could kill independent musicians. Fact of the matter is that ads are a form of revenue and there are healthy alternatives out there. For instance, instead of giving away an infinitesimal fraction of our mental health to every single internet business, we can instead enter a social contract in which everything is free, and consumers are expected to pay into the channels and services that they like best. This is, for instance, how many Podcasts and non-advertiser-friendly Youtube channels work.

manigandham 7y ago
"Intellectual terrorism"? This makes no sense. Using this kind of extremist language doesn't help. > "healthy alternatives out there" That's the real myth. You either pay for content up front (by going to work, getting paid in cash, and using that cash) or you see some ads (which convert your attention to payments in real-time on demand for exactly what you're consuming). For billions of people, ads are faster, easier, more passive and more fair. Donations are not a scalable business. Podcasts are in an advertiser boom and are making record amounts of money from ads so I'm not sure why you used that example. Very few (if any) channels of size are completely user-supported.
- disintegore 7y ago
  "Intellectual terrorism" is indeed pretty extreme, and the term only applies to some segments of the industry. However that's exactly how I would describe the effect that fashion & beauty advertising have on women and men to a lesser extent. None of the podcasts I listen to contain any kind of advertisement of any kind. This is not difficult to explain; prudent businesses typically do not stray very far outside the Overton window. This form of media exists - flourishes - because of listener patronage. > Donations are not a scalable business. True, but it's a viable business model. If you want something that scales as high as your entrepreneurial ambitions, consider that 100 million people pay Spotify in order to not have to listen to ads.