Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

You Will Read Our Ads, And Like It

Posted by timothy on from the and-glue-your-eyes-open-too dept.

sheister writes "over at myciti.com they are asking members to agree to a new set of terms before using the service, including "'..we may display advertisements and promotions of all kinds on our web site(s) and you agree not to disable any technology required or utilized to serve or display such advertising;' Has anyone else noticed pushy Terms and Conditions like this on the web?"

10 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. So.. by arkham6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The bank can now tell me what software I can and cannot run on my computer? How I run my computer is MY business, and if I choose to block ads, that is my right, since it is MY computer, MY bandwidth and MY choice. I don't give two shakes if they want to make more money off me. Maybe if they would split 50/50 with me anything they make from it, I might consider it, but otherwise, push off jack.

    1. Re:So.. by gilroy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Blockquoth the poster:

      The bank can now tell me what software I can and cannot run on my computer?

      OK, let's be fair. myciti.com is a free service offered by Citibank to let you organize all your online transactions through one portal. It stores passwords, checks balances for you, etc. Here's the rub: It really is free-as-in-beer. Now, if they want to recoup some of the cost and so use ads, that's their right. And if they want to hinge your usage of their free-as-in-beer site on your agreement to view those ads, it's still their right. If you don't like it, don't use the site... it's hardly a necessity, just a convenience.


      All of that said, it's a dumb move by Citibank. It just engenders ill will, doesn't result in any more ads being viewed, and makes them look stupid (and a little petulant).


      Disclaimer: I use the myciti.com site and have found it generally nice... though hardly indispensable.

      --
      The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
    2. Re:So.. by Russellkhan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      OK, let's be fair. myciti.com is a free service offered by Citibank to let you organize all your online transactions through one portal. It stores passwords, checks balances for you, etc. Here's the rub: It really is free-as-in-beer.


      Hmm, I think we have different views of free-as-in-beer. This appears to me to be an example of free-the-marketing-word.

      From what I can tell by looking over the site (they don't make the real information easy to find for those who don't sign up), myciti.com is for Citibank customers only. In other words it's part of the package that comes with an account. Marketers like to refer to this as "free," but I tend to think "included" is a more accurate word for it. (I won't go into my rant about how these services serve the bank much more than the customers here).

      Another point - even if myciti.com were a service provided for all to use with or without a Citibank account, it would cease to be free-as-in-beer when viewing ads (and running your browser in whatver configuration is required to view those ads) becomes a requirement to receive the service. This is somewhat reminiscent of the trend popularized by companies like Aureate/Radiate, Conducent/Timesink, etc (and still used in apps like Opera and Eudora) to call ad-sponsored applications "free."

      Free-as-in-beer means "This nifty thing is here for you to take and enjoy, no strings attached" not "If you buy our product you can have this nifty thing" or "If you view these ads you can have this nifty thing."

      Russ
      --
      Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
  2. One step to go... by gnovos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...until: By agreeing to these terms you agree to buy the products advertized on this site.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  3. Re:Who cares? by Deanasc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    which still loads the ads, but then removes them from the page layout

    Part of the reason I want to block ads is that I'm on the campus network and restricted to the total amount of bandwidth I'm allowed in a month. If I go over I get cut off. So anything that cuts unwanted bandwidth is good. Anything that forces me to give up precious bandwidth is a really bad thing.

    In otherwords if they force too many ads down my connection I loose my connection and they loose a customer. When will they realize forced advertising is a bad idea? (I know, probably never.)

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  4. Try 1wrestling by Tabercil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Try surfing www.1wrestling.com with Norton Internet Security's Ad Blocking feature switched on... you get shunted to a No Access page saying:

    "We're sorry, but our site relies on the revenue we get from advertisers to bring you the quality content you see each day. Consequently, we no longer permit access from users who use Ad blocking software."

  5. Re:Who cares? by billcopc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is BannerBlinds really required to download the entire ad ? why not just send a GET for it and abort the transfer as soon as it starts ? That's enough to fool most webservers' logs. It's not like they pay attention to what's going down the pipe once the transfer's started.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  6. Re:Who cares? by isorox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I access the web via a cache along with arround 20,000 other people. Will they be able to get a court order to force my ISP (Exeter university, or Blueyonder), which isn't in the same country, to divulge their logs? Or will they sue the ISP who didnt agree to anything?

    Howabout webcaches in botswana, or iran? Will these bow to pressure from the great US of A?

  7. Easy to block by fluor2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    well.. It's easy for them to block people that block ads. It's just to check if they have a hit on the gif banner pictures. If not, then they should ban their ip for e.g. 3minutes.

  8. This is a non-problem by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "...agree not to disable any technology required or utilized to serve or display such advertising"

    Technology? What technology? Where is the description of the technology in question? How is an end user supposed to know which technologies are "required or utilized" if the "agreement" does not specifically include them? How is anyone supposed to know if they are in compliance with the "agreement"?

    The "not to disable" part is also interesting. That's not the same thing as "enabling" the unmentioned "required or utilized" technologies (cookies and popups?). I don't have to accept cookies or enable popups, especially if I disabled those features before visiting their website. I don't have to install Flash. In fact, I can easily find a web browser that is simply too old to support any of their "technology".

    And then we have the last line of defense: ignorance. "Gee whiz Citibank, I had no idea that I was prohibited from disabling W, X, Y, and Z to use your site. I have no idea what those thing are or why they don't work on my computer. Besides, the whole thing was set up by my brother in-law, who uses some other bank."

    Now for an example of two wrongs making a right: Let's tell Citibank about Gator. Perhaps the marketing stupidity on both sides will cancel out.