6 ms·

I almost find this a bit cute: > Without third-party cookies, they will not be able to participate in the existing industry system for privacy protection. The

by judofyr 14y ago

I almost find this a bit cute: > Without third-party cookies, they will not be able to participate in the existing industry system for privacy protection. Their privacy is still protected, but they can't participate in the privacy protection system! Oh noes! > They will see an increase in the irrelevant spam advertising served to them So you're telling me that when you serve ads for "RightWingNews.com, LiberalOasis.com, MotherhoodWTF.com, and SuburbanDaddy.com [and] thousands of small businesses" there's no possible way to find relevant ads without tracking the user?

mkmkmmmmm 14y ago
Using Firefox and AdBlock Plus I actually expect I will continue to see exactly zero irrelevant spam advertising. Still, it's funny to see the mental gymnastics going on when someone obviously wants to exploit people but does not want to admit it.
- ne0phyte 14y ago
  Well, there will be new ways to embed ads. Like ads between related articles or when you scroll through results and one of them has 6pt "Ad" in the corner but looks exactly like the real search results. They will find a way to make it really hard to block that stuff based on generic rules or by blocking the servers that serve the ads.
  - aerique 14y ago
    I assume at that point some governments will correct that behavior.
    - greenyoda 14y ago
      Or users will correct the behavior by avoiding obnoxious sites.
- relix 14y ago
  By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    The same argument can be made for not running Flash, JavaScript, or any other technology the site asks you to run in order to run ads. After all, the intent is that you watch those ads to consume the content. If the intent is to require me to watch ads, then the site can be setup to require that. What I download from where is up to me. I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.
    - relix 14y ago
      The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.
      - jasonlotito 14y ago
        > The site is setup to require that you watch ads Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already. However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly. And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it. Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
thenomad 14y ago
Whilst I'm not convinced by the IAB's arguments here, it's worth noting that not all sites - indeed, most sites - aren't as easy to target as the examples you give. Speaking as someone who buys a fair bit of advertising, there are thousands of sites in the inventory of most RTB sellers which I'll just skip over unless their inventory is really cheap, because it's very hard to figure out a single product that most of the site's readership would use. (Example site - Photobucket. What ads would obviously make money on there?) Also, for quite a few sites where the core demographic does have some obvious interests, there aren't that many well-paying advertisers for that demo. Retargeting and similar tracking-based advertising systems help fill in the gaps when the core advertisers aren't buying all the inventory.
kolektiv 14y ago
The part that I particularly like actually is slightly different to that: > "They'll see untargeted ads, which will look like spam. We have to get this information to them somehow." Oh really, you have to get this information to me? Seriously? I didn't ask for it, I have no desire for it, no you don't have to. You want to, because someone is paying you to do so. Yet another case of someone thinking they have a right to a business model. No you don't. If it fails it fails. Find something to sell that people want (or at least don't despise enough to actively put you out of business).

by judofyr 14y ago

mkmkmmmmm 14y ago

Using Firefox and AdBlock Plus I actually expect I will continue to see exactly zero irrelevant spam advertising. Still, it's funny to see the mental gymnastics going on when someone obviously wants to exploit people but does not want to admit it.

ne0phyte 14y ago
Well, there will be new ways to embed ads. Like ads between related articles or when you scroll through results and one of them has 6pt "Ad" in the corner but looks exactly like the real search results. They will find a way to make it really hard to block that stuff based on generic rules or by blocking the servers that serve the ads.
- aerique 14y ago
  I assume at that point some governments will correct that behavior.
  - greenyoda 14y ago
    Or users will correct the behavior by avoiding obnoxious sites.
relix 14y ago
By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  The same argument can be made for not running Flash, JavaScript, or any other technology the site asks you to run in order to run ads. After all, the intent is that you watch those ads to consume the content. If the intent is to require me to watch ads, then the site can be setup to require that. What I download from where is up to me. I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.
  - relix 14y ago
    The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      > The site is setup to require that you watch ads Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already. However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly. And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it. Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.

thenomad 14y ago

Whilst I'm not convinced by the IAB's arguments here, it's worth noting that not all sites - indeed, most sites - aren't as easy to target as the examples you give. Speaking as someone who buys a fair bit of advertising, there are thousands of sites in the inventory of most RTB sellers which I'll just skip over unless their inventory is really cheap, because it's very hard to figure out a single product that most of the site's readership would use. (Example site - Photobucket. What ads would obviously make money on there?) Also, for quite a few sites where the core demographic does have some obvious interests, there aren't that many well-paying advertisers for that demo. Retargeting and similar tracking-based advertising systems help fill in the gaps when the core advertisers aren't buying all the inventory.

kolektiv 14y ago

The part that I particularly like actually is slightly different to that: > "They'll see untargeted ads, which will look like spam. We have to get this information to them somehow." Oh really, you have to get this information to me? Seriously? I didn't ask for it, I have no desire for it, no you don't have to. You want to, because someone is paying you to do so. Yet another case of someone thinking they have a right to a business model. No you don't. If it fails it fails. Find something to sell that people want (or at least don't despise enough to actively put you out of business).