3 ms·

It seems to me that this letter seems to care about everyone ("ad-supported small businesses", "advertisers", "website owners", "Ad networks", "small publishers

It seems to me that this letter seems to care about everyone ("ad-supported small businesses", "advertisers", "website owners", "Ad networks", "small publishers") except for the one who matters the most: The User. I'm not going to say what Mozilla should or shouldn't do in this case. They know better, and more importantly, they are free to do what they want. I just want to point out to IAB, whoever they are, that if they want to make an appealing argument, maybe put the user forward?

nateweiss 13y ago
Agreed. While the trend away from 3rd party cookies is at present and will probably continue to be a thorn in my side in the coming years as a coder, I think that most internet users will be happier in a world where they are mostly not supported. If you just read through the list of companies that signed (lots of media this and that), I think most normal folks would hardly be sorry not to be able to be "tracked" (whatever that turns out to mean in practice) by them. In general reminds me of the movie business that gouges customers on ticket prices and concessions, then complains when the customers start watching movies elsewhere.
thirdstation 13y ago
They did include you: > and the millions of consumers who enjoy the diversity of content and services the internet provides (Ignore the small-i internet typo). Do they mean to suggest that millions of consumers enjoy advertising? Thank you for thinking of me IAB!
- amitparikh 13y ago
  I don't think they mean to suggest that all users "enjoy" advertising, but it IS a reality of the current state of Internet monetization economics that advertising plays a large role in allowing, in IAB's words, the "long tail" of the web to operate in the near-term and grow in the long-term.
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    I suspect that if the web were less ad-oriented, native software would experience a boon, which I think would have a number of interesting and positive effects on the developer/programmer/hacker community.
  - thirdstation 13y ago
    > I don't think they mean to suggest that all users "enjoy" advertising, I don't think so either :-) I was merely poking fun at the way they co-opted the entire Internet in an attempt to make Mozilla seem like they are on the wrong side of the issue. They would be more genuine if they wrote an open letter to the Internet instructing how to re-enable third-party cookies in Mozilla and why they are good (according to the IAB).
pasbesoin 13y ago
I would permit some advertising, if 1) It didn't "move around" and try to distract me; 2) It wasn't a potential vector for malicious technical endeavors (meaning, as opposed to advertisements for crap/exploitative products). Every time I read about another ad network vector for malicious behavior, my current position is reinforced. I feel some guilt about this, with respect to sites I like, but it doesn't override my need for "safe computing". So... if you want your advertising to get onto my system, improve your fucking product! Back when "the Web was young", I permitted advertising, and I actually encountered a number of interesting and useful products via it. That was also a time when the "Web" community was a lot smaller, and particularly technology-oriented advertising has a significantly higher chance of being on-target with respect at least to me as audience. Then ads starting moving, shouting, and playing bad sets. And then came the malware. That was it, for me. Clean up your act, and I might let you back. Sooner or later, someone is going to figure this out.
mmv 13y ago
Many times the user is interested in what "ad-supported small businesses" and "small publishers" (or even ad-supported big business and publishers) have to offer, so if those can't keep themselves running, there's a chance that the user will not be happy. Besides disabling cookies doesn't mean blocking ads, so if the lack of tracking makes ads less attractive, other (possibly more intrusive) techniques must be used. I, for one, surely wouldn't want that. That said, I think IAB has a very reasonable point there.

nateweiss 13y ago

Agreed. While the trend away from 3rd party cookies is at present and will probably continue to be a thorn in my side in the coming years as a coder, I think that most internet users will be happier in a world where they are mostly not supported. If you just read through the list of companies that signed (lots of media this and that), I think most normal folks would hardly be sorry not to be able to be "tracked" (whatever that turns out to mean in practice) by them. In general reminds me of the movie business that gouges customers on ticket prices and concessions, then complains when the customers start watching movies elsewhere.

thirdstation 13y ago

They did include you: > and the millions of consumers who enjoy the diversity of content and services the internet provides (Ignore the small-i internet typo). Do they mean to suggest that millions of consumers enjoy advertising? Thank you for thinking of me IAB!

amitparikh 13y ago
I don't think they mean to suggest that all users "enjoy" advertising, but it IS a reality of the current state of Internet monetization economics that advertising plays a large role in allowing, in IAB's words, the "long tail" of the web to operate in the near-term and grow in the long-term.
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago
  I suspect that if the web were less ad-oriented, native software would experience a boon, which I think would have a number of interesting and positive effects on the developer/programmer/hacker community.
- thirdstation 13y ago
  > I don't think they mean to suggest that all users "enjoy" advertising, I don't think so either :-) I was merely poking fun at the way they co-opted the entire Internet in an attempt to make Mozilla seem like they are on the wrong side of the issue. They would be more genuine if they wrote an open letter to the Internet instructing how to re-enable third-party cookies in Mozilla and why they are good (according to the IAB).

pasbesoin 13y ago

I would permit some advertising, if 1) It didn't "move around" and try to distract me; 2) It wasn't a potential vector for malicious technical endeavors (meaning, as opposed to advertisements for crap/exploitative products). Every time I read about another ad network vector for malicious behavior, my current position is reinforced. I feel some guilt about this, with respect to sites I like, but it doesn't override my need for "safe computing". So... if you want your advertising to get onto my system, improve your fucking product! Back when "the Web was young", I permitted advertising, and I actually encountered a number of interesting and useful products via it. That was also a time when the "Web" community was a lot smaller, and particularly technology-oriented advertising has a significantly higher chance of being on-target with respect at least to me as audience. Then ads starting moving, shouting, and playing bad sets. And then came the malware. That was it, for me. Clean up your act, and I might let you back. Sooner or later, someone is going to figure this out.

mmv 13y ago

Many times the user is interested in what "ad-supported small businesses" and "small publishers" (or even ad-supported big business and publishers) have to offer, so if those can't keep themselves running, there's a chance that the user will not be happy. Besides disabling cookies doesn't mean blocking ads, so if the lack of tracking makes ads less attractive, other (possibly more intrusive) techniques must be used. I, for one, surely wouldn't want that. That said, I think IAB has a very reasonable point there.