5 ms·

This can only play out a few ways, right? A) Firefox holds its ground, Advertisers hold their ground as well. Advertisers refuse to work with websites that sup

This can only play out a few ways, right? A) Firefox holds its ground, Advertisers hold their ground as well. Advertisers refuse to work with websites that support the version of Firefox with "Do Not Track", unless the websites add some code to tell their visitors to use another browser/refuse to load the site. This leads to two scenarios: Ai) Developers agree and implement advertiser strategy, Firefox becomes an unreliable browsing experience, market share slips. Firefox possibly reverses position. Aii) Developers refuse to implement advertiser strategy (by using either another ad partner or moving to a different monetization strategy), and advertisers finally reverse position. B) Firefox holds its ground, advertisers cave: websites start seeing less revenue from ads as targeting isn't as effective anymore, websites that get most of their money from ad revenue either start panicking and blocking Firefox users, or start putting up paywalls. C) Firefox yields, advertisers get their way: pretty much the status quo. D) Firefox yields, advertisers yield: some sort of compromise between the two camps.

anologwintermut 13y ago
E) Firefox holds its ground. Advertisers start finding more invasive ways to track people (flash cookies, user-agent strings, font packages ... "super cookies").
- c0ur7n3y 13y ago
  What do you mean start? All of those methods are already being used. Regular cookies are so five-years-ago.
tomjen3 13y ago
How many sites block you for using adblock? Yeah, that is likely the same number of issues you will have with no third-party cookies.
- eggbrain 13y ago
  Not many now, but if websites start feeling the squeeze from ad revenue, it will become more common (see Hulu making commercials 2-3x as long if Adblock is enabled). It's also an unfair comparison because Adblock is opt-in -- you have to download the add-on to get it to work, which not many people are willing to do (what percentage of Firefox users use AdBlock -- maybe 5%?). DNT, on the other hand, is something all Firefox users will have enabled by default -- Imagine 20% of the worldwide browsing market suddenly blocking all tracking cookies.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    Can you elaborate on the Hulu commercial thing with Adblock? Why would changing duration do anything? If Hulu can detect an adblocker, why not just not do the video at all? Playing a blocked ad for longer doesn't seem to make any sense.
    - eggbrain 13y ago
      ...why not just not do the video at all? Playing a blocked ad for longer doesn't seem to make any sense. Well, it's actually a fairly clever solution. If the person wants to block ads Hulu won't stop them, it will just make the commercial time take 3x as long ("commercial time" meaning silence in this scenario, since no ad is served, which is actually quite jarring in videos when you have silence for 6 minutes followed by the video continuing). The people who allow ads get to watch the original shorter commercials, meaning they don't have to wait nearly as long. They could probably block people who block ads and just refuse to serve the video, but that could prevent people from legitimately watching the show if their adblock-checker went haywire. Plus, users would be probably more pissed if you outright blocked them rather than if you made their experience annoying.
  - jeffcutsinger 13y ago
    > DNT, on the other hand, is something all Firefox users will have enabled by default It's opt-in. My guess is that the gap between people willing to install an add-in and people willing to dig into their settings and check a box is not large.
    - eggbrain 13y ago
      From the article: ...That would leave Firefox in a permanent state of blocking advertisers' cookies by default. Default means this feature would be an opt-out feature, not an opt-in feature. Since Firefox now autoupdates, that means soon most Firefox installs would have this enabled by default without any user input.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    Maybe, I am consistently surprised by the number of people who don't have adblock installed. But surely it must me much higher in the technology segment.
- gyardley 13y ago
  That's because we're a small minority and usually convert poorly anyway, so the industry could care less. Block third-party cookies for everybody, and the ad industry suddenly starts to care. The perennial pitches for first-party tracking and first-party ad-serving products get funded this time around, and eventually you won't be able to block ads and tracking without simultaneously blocking site content and functionality. Having third-party cookies turned off won't cause you any problems, it's true, but that'll be because what they used to do will get done through other means.
s3r3nity 13y ago
B is what I'm worried about and I'm worried that this has a 90% chance of happening. I have about 2 years of experience working in online ads in some way shape or form, and it frustrates me how much the implications here aren't really being considered. Currently, whenever I hear "I see too many ads for shit that is too related to my interests" (paraphrased), I consider it the ultimate 21st century 1st world problem. Because this is how sites make their money, and how Google got to where it is today. You want to cut off online ads? Fine: - Any sites that are free will undergo a paywall, as people don't work for free. - More apps in the app stores increase their prices, as ad revenue is no longer there for the apps they create - More paywalls and higher prices mean that lower income people and people in developing countries can't access free and distributable content. And don't give me this BS about how "If X site were pay-per-use with no ads, I would totally pay for it" because <i>power users don't power websites</i> ... as soon as you charge for something then 90% of the users drop off. [See: Google Reader, any social network, etc.]
- tg3 13y ago
  Power users can power websites, so long as the website's value isn't (too) dependent on the number of users it has. For example, Dropbox's power users essentially subsidize everyone else's usage. That model may have worked for Google Reader as well. Social networks have a harder time, because anything that reduces interaction in the network reduces the value for everyone.
  - s3r3nity 13y ago
    Interesting point, though I'm still convinced that Dropbox is the exception rather than the rule -- being a >90% margin business means you can take a risk like this and it's not really a "risk", whereas a search engine, news site, Youtube, etc. would not
- mirkules 13y ago
  B is the option I am precisely hoping for. I find it really creepy to get cross-targeted ads. I am willing to give up 90% of the websites I view (and pay for the remaining 10%) so I don't have to look at ads, and more importantly, so that they don't look at me. After all the news about the government tracking us by gaining access to third-party services, I really don't want to give some company any more information that I absolutely have to. I regret that this hurts your bottom line as an employee of the advertising business, but just as my privacy is your casualty of doing business, your business is my casualty of maintaining my privacy.

anologwintermut 13y ago

E) Firefox holds its ground. Advertisers start finding more invasive ways to track people (flash cookies, user-agent strings, font packages ... "super cookies").

c0ur7n3y 13y ago
What do you mean start? All of those methods are already being used. Regular cookies are so five-years-ago.

tomjen3 13y ago

How many sites block you for using adblock? Yeah, that is likely the same number of issues you will have with no third-party cookies.

eggbrain 13y ago
Not many now, but if websites start feeling the squeeze from ad revenue, it will become more common (see Hulu making commercials 2-3x as long if Adblock is enabled). It's also an unfair comparison because Adblock is opt-in -- you have to download the add-on to get it to work, which not many people are willing to do (what percentage of Firefox users use AdBlock -- maybe 5%?). DNT, on the other hand, is something all Firefox users will have enabled by default -- Imagine 20% of the worldwide browsing market suddenly blocking all tracking cookies.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Can you elaborate on the Hulu commercial thing with Adblock? Why would changing duration do anything? If Hulu can detect an adblocker, why not just not do the video at all? Playing a blocked ad for longer doesn't seem to make any sense.
  - eggbrain 13y ago
    ...why not just not do the video at all? Playing a blocked ad for longer doesn't seem to make any sense. Well, it's actually a fairly clever solution. If the person wants to block ads Hulu won't stop them, it will just make the commercial time take 3x as long ("commercial time" meaning silence in this scenario, since no ad is served, which is actually quite jarring in videos when you have silence for 6 minutes followed by the video continuing). The people who allow ads get to watch the original shorter commercials, meaning they don't have to wait nearly as long. They could probably block people who block ads and just refuse to serve the video, but that could prevent people from legitimately watching the show if their adblock-checker went haywire. Plus, users would be probably more pissed if you outright blocked them rather than if you made their experience annoying.
- jeffcutsinger 13y ago
  > DNT, on the other hand, is something all Firefox users will have enabled by default It's opt-in. My guess is that the gap between people willing to install an add-in and people willing to dig into their settings and check a box is not large.
  - eggbrain 13y ago
    From the article: ...That would leave Firefox in a permanent state of blocking advertisers' cookies by default. Default means this feature would be an opt-out feature, not an opt-in feature. Since Firefox now autoupdates, that means soon most Firefox installs would have this enabled by default without any user input.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  Maybe, I am consistently surprised by the number of people who don't have adblock installed. But surely it must me much higher in the technology segment.
gyardley 13y ago
That's because we're a small minority and usually convert poorly anyway, so the industry could care less. Block third-party cookies for everybody, and the ad industry suddenly starts to care. The perennial pitches for first-party tracking and first-party ad-serving products get funded this time around, and eventually you won't be able to block ads and tracking without simultaneously blocking site content and functionality. Having third-party cookies turned off won't cause you any problems, it's true, but that'll be because what they used to do will get done through other means.

s3r3nity 13y ago

B is what I'm worried about and I'm worried that this has a 90% chance of happening. I have about 2 years of experience working in online ads in some way shape or form, and it frustrates me how much the implications here aren't really being considered. Currently, whenever I hear "I see too many ads for shit that is too related to my interests" (paraphrased), I consider it the ultimate 21st century 1st world problem. Because this is how sites make their money, and how Google got to where it is today. You want to cut off online ads? Fine: - Any sites that are free will undergo a paywall, as people don't work for free. - More apps in the app stores increase their prices, as ad revenue is no longer there for the apps they create - More paywalls and higher prices mean that lower income people and people in developing countries can't access free and distributable content. And don't give me this BS about how "If X site were pay-per-use with no ads, I would totally pay for it" because <i>power users don't power websites</i> ... as soon as you charge for something then 90% of the users drop off. [See: Google Reader, any social network, etc.]

tg3 13y ago
Power users can power websites, so long as the website's value isn't (too) dependent on the number of users it has. For example, Dropbox's power users essentially subsidize everyone else's usage. That model may have worked for Google Reader as well. Social networks have a harder time, because anything that reduces interaction in the network reduces the value for everyone.
- s3r3nity 13y ago
  Interesting point, though I'm still convinced that Dropbox is the exception rather than the rule -- being a >90% margin business means you can take a risk like this and it's not really a "risk", whereas a search engine, news site, Youtube, etc. would not
mirkules 13y ago
B is the option I am precisely hoping for. I find it really creepy to get cross-targeted ads. I am willing to give up 90% of the websites I view (and pay for the remaining 10%) so I don't have to look at ads, and more importantly, so that they don't look at me. After all the news about the government tracking us by gaining access to third-party services, I really don't want to give some company any more information that I absolutely have to. I regret that this hurts your bottom line as an employee of the advertising business, but just as my privacy is your casualty of doing business, your business is my casualty of maintaining my privacy.