Slashdot Mirror

Two of them are easy. "Encrypted" means served through HTTPS. "Ad choice supported" means supporting the YourAdChoices control to turn interest-based ad delivery on and off.

The other two are a bit more vague, but Google iab non-invasive ads returns IAB Tech Lab Solutions with a bit more explanation. "Light" means a maximum data size, as specified in IAB Creative Guidelines. "Non-invasive" means that ads do not cover the body of the article, and ads other than an interstitial before a video body do not automatically play audio.

Two of them are easy. "Encrypted" means served through HTTPS. "Ad choice supported" means supporting the YourAdChoices control to turn interest-based ad delivery on and off.

The other two are a bit more vague, but Google iab non-invasive ads returns IAB Tech Lab Solutions with a bit more explanation. "Light" means a maximum data size, as specified in IAB Creative Guidelines. "Non-invasive" means that ads do not cover the body of the article, and ads other than an interstitial before a video body do not automatically play audio.

There was a post two weeks ago on an adtech blog suggesting that some publishers* are about to go full DMCA/CFAA on developers of ad blockers that include an ad blocker blocker blocker. By this legal theory, an ad blocker blocker is an "access control" measure, and an ad blocker blocker blocker is a "circumvention device".

Learning about this plan has led me to think of ways to provide a better experience on a metered Internet connection without specifically blocking ads. One is to set a cap on how much data an individual page loads, with a "Load More" button after each megabyte. Another is to block video content types, script content types, and things loaded from third-party domains. If this becomes common, advertisers will at least have to start making their "creative" leaner.

* Operators of websites that carry advertising.

When did expecting everything to be free become acceptable? Does your employer expect you to work for free?

Around the same time it became acceptable to preach the polar opposite.

But before we continue, about your snark: Does the advertiser expect you to become addicted to life to a product that causes lung decay and lung cancer? (Yes, actually. Yes, also, about some employers, if they could get it.)

Rothenberg Says Ad Blocking Is a War against Diversity and Freedom of Expression

Both sides of this debate lack nuance because advertising as micro-currency is a brain-damaged human enterprise.

It makes as much sense as expecting Olympic athletes to eat a giant BBQ-flavoured potato chip dunked in cream cheese in exchange for each coaching tip. Too bad about their beautiful, pristine bodies. Too bad about our formerly pristine minds. I have never seen the advertisement of an idea that didn't contain more junk calories than the non-advertisement form of the same idea.

If one enters this debate through the door of human potential, everything free makes more sense than everything paid for by ingesting mental junk food.

Modern society's marginal cost of sharing information is essentially zero. In view of the looming cognitive-automation labour surplus, is it actually such a necessity to recover up front capital costs as we are conditioned to think it is? Open source has already broken that model to a large degree. This could become a much more common effect in the post-participation economy.

More and more, as technology permits, advertisers will begin to insist that people viewing the ads actually follow through with substitution purchases (where the advertised good replaces a more cost-effective default alternative the consumer might have purchased otherwise). The IAB is already preaching full-circle consumer compliance.

That is the only sane position that closes the ludicrous intellectual gap between always free and always junk-laden. Note that merit-based product promotion does not require compulsory junk consumption (the natural domain of obtrusive advertising is to convince people to behave in ways their more rational self would otherwise reject.)

There does exist the IAB (there are a few policy papers there,) but the industry has yet to really formalize a code of strict ethics. I hear you loud and clear. I don't really think the IAB is the solution - it appears too much like a vested industry shrill to me.

I guess I can ratify my involvement with the industry knowing that I AM picky about what happens on my computer, and that I DONT condone sneaky or unethical behaviour in order to increase marketshare. If I wasn't working my job, you wouldn't want some apolitical automaton working my job. Without saying too much, I'm glad I'm here, because I get to directly influence the direction of a technology I think has wide potential for abuse.

I will note, however, that Microsoft has done a wonderful job of allowing marketers and advertisers to walk over their machines. Cookies is nothing when you consider the adware and spyware crap that actually RUNs on your computer and silently transmits information to who knows where. You point out that it is the Gators and such that really ruin it, and I couldn't agree more. Net advertising has earned a very poor reputation in part its so easy to abuse an advertising users' computer.

And in case I'm implying this, I'm not anybody important. I'm just a lone developer working in a very fascinating industry. I find seperating the moral code from the source code to be one helluva cool problem.