6 ms·

Of course it's dying. There is no acceptable solution that isn't on by default, and advertisers will never accept that because nobody would ever turn it off. Th

Of course it's dying. There is no acceptable solution that isn't on by default, and advertisers will never accept that because nobody would ever turn it off. Their business model would dry up and die. So they block it at every opportunity, because what else are they going to do? Change to a business model based on things people actually want? Ha! What an idea.

eli 14y ago
I'm curious, what business model do you think people want? Apps that offer ad-supported and paid versions tend to have many, many more ad-supported users, so I'm not convinced that's it.
- zzzeek 14y ago
  "This website requires ad tracking to be enabled in order to view its content. Do you want to enable ad-tracking for this site?" The site gets to use ad tracking on end users, it has their explicit permission, and I get to have a list in my browser of all those sites that are tracking me. Everybody wins.
  - eli 14y ago
    I like the idea of more transparency from publishers, but like the UK cookie law this just seems like it would just add a lot hassle for not a lot of benefit. It's not like the people using Facebook aren't aware that it tracks you. I think if a permission request for tracking were required, it would be treated much like "I agree to the terms and conditions" checkboxes are today...almost universally ignored.
    - stewartbutler 14y ago
      > It's not like the people using Facebook aren't aware that it tracks you. I call bullshit on this. The majority of the people using Facebook have no clue what information they are giving up to a third party, and would be very concerned if they realized that their browsing habits were tracked by Facebook without their explicit authorization.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
bostonpete 14y ago
You seem to be assuming that the existing business model is one which people don't want. It allows websites to monetize using information that the vast majority of people don't care about, which allows most content on the internet to remain free. I'd say people are, by and large, pretty happy with this business model.
- arscan 14y ago
  I agree, the more targeted the ads, the higher value of the page view, the more free services. Plus people tend to buy things they think they want, so they are happy if they get ads that are actually relevant. The problem is that there is a lot of value in that data beyond just targeted advertising. That's where things get cloudy.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  If people want this business model, why is adblock so popular and getting moreso? 15 million daily users for just Firefox ABP alone! For comparison, this is roughly 5M more people than play World of Warcraft. And I'd wager most people know someone who plays that game.. Why are advertisers so scared of DNT on by default? If people want it so much, surely they'd go out of their way to enable it?
  - arscan 14y ago
    According to Firefox, they have 450 million users... I wouldn't call 5% "so popular". Having DNT on by default (and advertisers actually paying attention to it) would result in an immediate 100% of firefox users. From my perspective, I'll use adblock, but I want everybody else to NOT use adblock. That way more websites can exist on advertising revenue. edit: not quite apples-to-apples, as DNT reduces the value of an ad, while adblock eliminates it. but the general idea still stands
  - dpark 14y ago
    I'd bet that most people who install AdBlock software aren't doing it because they care about getting tracked, but because they get sick of obnoxious ads, which exist independent of tracking. AdBlocking software does not stop tracking. That's not feasible, unless turning on AdBlock also severs your internet connection. It might diminish tracking, but only incidentally.
mibbitier 14y ago
I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like. You're perhaps one of the very very few people who dislike being told about things, but thankfully you're in the minority. The whole "do not track us" idea is ridiculous and a 'moot' issue. Cookies aren't really necessary, you can track people server side based on their browser make up, and they won't know they're being tracked. 99.9% of browsers are completely unique and identifiable back to the computer. If you really don't want to be tracked (<0.01% of users), then use TOR, lynx, adblock, disallow cookies, etc etc etc Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Endless clicking confirmation boxes / dropdowns to say it's ok for them to store a cookie. We do not need more of this madness.
- naner 14y ago
  I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like. Assuming that I wanted to be aware of relevant advertising, the signal to noise ratio is absolutely microscopic. Even sites that have massive data dossiers on me (Facebook and Google) routinely abuse my attention.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like. I hate advertising. Usually the ads are irrelevant and for things I do not and would not ever want, are often scammy, sometimes they carry malware, often get in the way of me retrieving the information I went to a site to see.. I bet if I counted every time I clicked on an advertisement in the last decade, that number would be less than 20. That said, I agree completely the "tracking" worries are absurd and more borne out of FUD than any concrete privacy issue. >Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Due to shoddy implementation of a shoddy law - that does not reflect whatsoever on the concept. And cumbersome? Really? Could you point to an example site?
  - dpark 14y ago
    > And cumbersome? Really? Could you point to an example site? It's definitely cumbersome. I've hit a bunch of sites recently that threw up an interstitial requiring me to "opt in" to cookies. This is obnoxious, and I go through the same thing on every device. It's not that one site doing it is especially cumbersome. It's the aggregate behavior. I didn't realize that a new EU law was responsible for this until I read mibbitier's comment, though.
anonymous 14y ago
It's a UI problem. If a site wants to track you, it should somehow instruct the browser that it won't let you in with the flag enabled. 1. Add another 400 code: "Privacy not allowed". 2. Browser displays dialog box "This site wants to track you. Yea/Nay?". 3. Everybody clicks Yea, since they want the site.
- thenomad 14y ago
  The EU cookie law faff from earlier this year shows that's probably not what would happen. Various people tested opt-ins for cookies. It didn't go too well. Instead, any site running a system like that, except those for which there genuinely is no alternative whatsoever, would see their visitor numbers plummet.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Problem is that there's nothing stopping the site from telling the browser that it is not tracking the user and then simply tracking them anyway.

eli 14y ago

I'm curious, what business model do you think people want? Apps that offer ad-supported and paid versions tend to have many, many more ad-supported users, so I'm not convinced that's it.

zzzeek 14y ago
"This website requires ad tracking to be enabled in order to view its content. Do you want to enable ad-tracking for this site?" The site gets to use ad tracking on end users, it has their explicit permission, and I get to have a list in my browser of all those sites that are tracking me. Everybody wins.
- eli 14y ago
  I like the idea of more transparency from publishers, but like the UK cookie law this just seems like it would just add a lot hassle for not a lot of benefit. It's not like the people using Facebook aren't aware that it tracks you. I think if a permission request for tracking were required, it would be treated much like "I agree to the terms and conditions" checkboxes are today...almost universally ignored.
  - stewartbutler 14y ago
    > It's not like the people using Facebook aren't aware that it tracks you. I call bullshit on this. The majority of the people using Facebook have no clue what information they are giving up to a third party, and would be very concerned if they realized that their browsing habits were tracked by Facebook without their explicit authorization.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

bostonpete 14y ago

You seem to be assuming that the existing business model is one which people don't want. It allows websites to monetize using information that the vast majority of people don't care about, which allows most content on the internet to remain free. I'd say people are, by and large, pretty happy with this business model.

arscan 14y ago
I agree, the more targeted the ads, the higher value of the page view, the more free services. Plus people tend to buy things they think they want, so they are happy if they get ads that are actually relevant. The problem is that there is a lot of value in that data beyond just targeted advertising. That's where things get cloudy.
Karunamon 14y ago
If people want this business model, why is adblock so popular and getting moreso? 15 million daily users for just Firefox ABP alone! For comparison, this is roughly 5M more people than play World of Warcraft. And I'd wager most people know someone who plays that game.. Why are advertisers so scared of DNT on by default? If people want it so much, surely they'd go out of their way to enable it?
- arscan 14y ago
  According to Firefox, they have 450 million users... I wouldn't call 5% "so popular". Having DNT on by default (and advertisers actually paying attention to it) would result in an immediate 100% of firefox users. From my perspective, I'll use adblock, but I want everybody else to NOT use adblock. That way more websites can exist on advertising revenue. edit: not quite apples-to-apples, as DNT reduces the value of an ad, while adblock eliminates it. but the general idea still stands
- dpark 14y ago
  I'd bet that most people who install AdBlock software aren't doing it because they care about getting tracked, but because they get sick of obnoxious ads, which exist independent of tracking. AdBlocking software does not stop tracking. That's not feasible, unless turning on AdBlock also severs your internet connection. It might diminish tracking, but only incidentally.

mibbitier 14y ago

I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like. You're perhaps one of the very very few people who dislike being told about things, but thankfully you're in the minority. The whole "do not track us" idea is ridiculous and a 'moot' issue. Cookies aren't really necessary, you can track people server side based on their browser make up, and they won't know they're being tracked. 99.9% of browsers are completely unique and identifiable back to the computer. If you really don't want to be tracked (<0.01% of users), then use TOR, lynx, adblock, disallow cookies, etc etc etc Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Endless clicking confirmation boxes / dropdowns to say it's ok for them to store a cookie. We do not need more of this madness.

naner 14y ago
I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like. Assuming that I wanted to be aware of relevant advertising, the signal to noise ratio is absolutely microscopic. Even sites that have massive data dossiers on me (Facebook and Google) routinely abuse my attention.
Karunamon 14y ago
>I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like. I hate advertising. Usually the ads are irrelevant and for things I do not and would not ever want, are often scammy, sometimes they carry malware, often get in the way of me retrieving the information I went to a site to see.. I bet if I counted every time I clicked on an advertisement in the last decade, that number would be less than 20. That said, I agree completely the "tracking" worries are absurd and more borne out of FUD than any concrete privacy issue. >Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Due to shoddy implementation of a shoddy law - that does not reflect whatsoever on the concept. And cumbersome? Really? Could you point to an example site?
- dpark 14y ago
  > And cumbersome? Really? Could you point to an example site? It's definitely cumbersome. I've hit a bunch of sites recently that threw up an interstitial requiring me to "opt in" to cookies. This is obnoxious, and I go through the same thing on every device. It's not that one site doing it is especially cumbersome. It's the aggregate behavior. I didn't realize that a new EU law was responsible for this until I read mibbitier's comment, though.

anonymous 14y ago

It's a UI problem. If a site wants to track you, it should somehow instruct the browser that it won't let you in with the flag enabled. 1. Add another 400 code: "Privacy not allowed". 2. Browser displays dialog box "This site wants to track you. Yea/Nay?". 3. Everybody clicks Yea, since they want the site.

thenomad 14y ago
The EU cookie law faff from earlier this year shows that's probably not what would happen. Various people tested opt-ins for cookies. It didn't go too well. Instead, any site running a system like that, except those for which there genuinely is no alternative whatsoever, would see their visitor numbers plummet.
jiggy2011 14y ago
Problem is that there's nothing stopping the site from telling the browser that it is not tracking the user and then simply tracking them anyway.