3 ms·

Overall this doesn't make much of a long-term difference. Ad serving will shift to first-party with DNS or entire reverse proxies and is already in progress. A

Overall this doesn't make much of a long-term difference. Ad serving will shift to first-party with DNS or entire reverse proxies and is already in progress. Apple has made some solid improvements but should now focus on not letting Safari become the next IE. The real impact changing the adtech industry is new regulations around data and privacy. That will change everything in a few months.

inetknght 7y ago
Good. If the ads are served from the first party domain that should make it a hell of a lot easier to attribute mal-action to that specific first party instead of offloading blame elsewhere.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Domains have nothing to do with the businesses and vendors behind them. The vast majority of publishers don't have the resources to run their own adtech infrastructure. 1st-party serving won't change anything with regards to chain of custody in ad content but the new regulations should at least make the chain shorter and more restricted in abilities.
  - zchrykng 7y ago
    If the malware comes from a domain they own, it is their fault. If they can't be bothered to handle their own ads or pick a better ad vendor, they can pay up for the damage they served up to my computer.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      That's not how any of it works, as I just explained. Continue to use your adblocker or avoid sites that run ads.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > Domains have nothing to do with the businesses and vendors behind them. TLS certificate says different. If malware comes from a TLS signed domain, then the owner of that domain is at-fault. Getting reparations from that domain is of course a different matter. But this should simplify the blame game. > The vast majority of publishers don't have the resources to run their own adtech infrastructure. I strongly disagree. Where there's a will, there's a way. And Google has the will.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them. Anyone can buy and transfer certificates. Besides there are actual business contracts in place so there's no need for such tenuous connections over domain names in the first place. As for your disagreement, what's your basis for claiming that publishers can build, operate, and scale their own adtech infrastructure and salesforce?
      - inetknght 7y ago
        > No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them. > Anyone can buy and transfer certificates. The registrar has a business relationship with the domain because the domain was purchased. The domain's owner uses DNS to point to an IP address. The client connects to that IP address and verifies that the IP address knows about the domain. "I paid for you to see example.com at 1.2.3.4" and "1.2.3.4 is responding to the name of example.com" completes that relationship. With Letsencrypt, anyone can get certificates for free. And you certainly can transfer your private key and certificate information to a third party. That won't stop you from being liable for any malware served by them because you are the one who owns the domain. Unless you transfer the domain too. Then it's all on them. The third party. Hope you transferred the IP address payment too. > Besides there are actual business contracts in place so there's no need for such tenuous connections over domain names in the first place. Business contracts don't mean shit to me because I can't inspect them. I can inspect DNS, however. > As for your disagreement, what's your basis for claiming that publishers can build, operate, and scale their own adtech infrastructure and salesforce? Publishers can just as easily create advertisements and host them on their own website the same way they host any other static content. Scaling advertisements is just as easy (or hard) as scaling any other web services. Once upon a time businesses actually employed people for their sales departments instead of offloading it to a third party.
buboard 7y ago
> Ad serving will shift to first-party also, people will sell/buy incentivized installs

inetknght 7y ago

Good. If the ads are served from the first party domain that should make it a hell of a lot easier to attribute mal-action to that specific first party instead of offloading blame elsewhere.

manigandham 7y ago
Domains have nothing to do with the businesses and vendors behind them. The vast majority of publishers don't have the resources to run their own adtech infrastructure. 1st-party serving won't change anything with regards to chain of custody in ad content but the new regulations should at least make the chain shorter and more restricted in abilities.
- zchrykng 7y ago
  If the malware comes from a domain they own, it is their fault. If they can't be bothered to handle their own ads or pick a better ad vendor, they can pay up for the damage they served up to my computer.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That's not how any of it works, as I just explained. Continue to use your adblocker or avoid sites that run ads.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > Domains have nothing to do with the businesses and vendors behind them. TLS certificate says different. If malware comes from a TLS signed domain, then the owner of that domain is at-fault. Getting reparations from that domain is of course a different matter. But this should simplify the blame game. > The vast majority of publishers don't have the resources to run their own adtech infrastructure. I strongly disagree. Where there's a will, there's a way. And Google has the will.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them. Anyone can buy and transfer certificates. Besides there are actual business contracts in place so there's no need for such tenuous connections over domain names in the first place. As for your disagreement, what's your basis for claiming that publishers can build, operate, and scale their own adtech infrastructure and salesforce?
    - inetknght 7y ago
      > No. TLS certificates have nothing to do with domain ownership or the businesses providing services behind them. > Anyone can buy and transfer certificates. The registrar has a business relationship with the domain because the domain was purchased. The domain's owner uses DNS to point to an IP address. The client connects to that IP address and verifies that the IP address knows about the domain. "I paid for you to see example.com at 1.2.3.4" and "1.2.3.4 is responding to the name of example.com" completes that relationship. With Letsencrypt, anyone can get certificates for free. And you certainly can transfer your private key and certificate information to a third party. That won't stop you from being liable for any malware served by them because you are the one who owns the domain. Unless you transfer the domain too. Then it's all on them. The third party. Hope you transferred the IP address payment too. > Besides there are actual business contracts in place so there's no need for such tenuous connections over domain names in the first place. Business contracts don't mean shit to me because I can't inspect them. I can inspect DNS, however. > As for your disagreement, what's your basis for claiming that publishers can build, operate, and scale their own adtech infrastructure and salesforce? Publishers can just as easily create advertisements and host them on their own website the same way they host any other static content. Scaling advertisements is just as easy (or hard) as scaling any other web services. Once upon a time businesses actually employed people for their sales departments instead of offloading it to a third party.

buboard 7y ago

> Ad serving will shift to first-party also, people will sell/buy incentivized installs