Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will "Do Not Track" Kill the Free Internet?

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-to-play dept.

jfruh writes "Dan Tynan is a privacy blogger and longtime proponent of the use of browser plug-ins and other technologies that block advertisers from tracking your web browsing habits. He's also a professional tech writer who makes his living writing articles for free, ad-supported sites. But he doesn't feel those two facts are in conflict, and points out that users pay good money to ISPs for those 'free' sites."

13 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Did AdBlock kill the free internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, and this won't either. Some users will use it, but most probably won't, either because they don't care or they don't know.

    1. Re:Did AdBlock kill the free internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I block ads not because I want to deny webpages money.

      I block them because ad rotator "services" are the primary infection vector out there. Even "top tier" sites like CNN have been bitten by ad services that either are too leniant on who they let advertise, or even "wink wink, nudge, nudge" condone blackhat activity, because in all likelihood, they won't get caught.

      Want to know how I know? There were good /. articles about this, and I personally have run clean VMs on a popular site (not a pr0n site), and the VM got stung by adware.

      So, until the advertisers stop allowing blackhats to send their crap, I will use Adblock and Flash blocking technologies.

      Another datum, although anecdotal: I use a VM to browse, and have been for a couple years now, using AdBlock and NoScript. It has no AV protection. Just yesterday, I decided to power the VM off and mount its VHD onto another VM to run 2-3 antivirus scanners on it. All came up clean.

      So, until the advertisers start cleaning up their game, I refuse them entry, just like I refuse entry to people in my house who might try to set it on fire, or pour plaster of Paris down the toilet.

    2. Re:Did AdBlock kill the free internet? by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect that if 'do not track' became so common that it actually effected ad dollars to any measurable degree (which I doubt unless FF/Chrome/IE all bundle it by default), we would probably see a rise of people providing content for other reasons, reasons that do not require ad-type dollars

      Wait, weren't ads present and effective in the past, prior to tracking?

      I mean, if you went to a site about computers, they carried ads from computer manufacturers, etc.
      The audience was already "targeted" by the mere fact that they arrived on that particular site. They selected themselves, and the ads were timely and focused.

      Now with tracking, if search for bicycles, and for the next few days you get bicycle ads on sites dealing with Smartphones, Baseball, Rose Bushes. ?!??
      This detracts from every web site's focus. I'm looking for a Catcher's mitt and they want to sell me a bike?

      And all it does is rub it in your face that you are being tracked. It sure doesn't endear me to that particular bicycle company.

      "Do not track" might even prove to earn more money for the advertisers, because the various web sites will (probably) fall back on focused advertising.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Did AdBlock kill the free internet? by cas2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, and this won't either. Some users will use it, but most probably won't, either because they don't care or they don't know.

      Sentence much?

      at least the OP actually posted a reasonably well-formed sentence that conveyed some meaning.

      you just posted a fuckwitted meme.

      WTF does adding " much?" to a word mean anyway? AFAICT, it's invariably an attempt to make some un-specified criticism or counterpoint without actually making any effort to, you know, make a criticism or counterpoint.

      is it a method for those with Irony Deficit Disorder or Sarcasm Deficit Disorder (AKA "Americans") to make some lame substitute attempt at irony or sarcasm?

  2. Doesn't Block Ads by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't block ads, it just protects people's privacy from being abused by them. The companies will still be able to show ads. For targetted ads, they'll have to use the same techniques they use for TV and print media, and those things haven't died yet.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Doesn't Block Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it *tells* the company to please don't track me. Next i'm writing a plugin that tell's the IRS to please don't tax me.

    2. Re:Doesn't Block Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not sure where you've been the last decade or so but print media is dying. As for TV, there's a few major differences. First off, even with the current, greatly expanded channel lineups on cable, a given TV channel has a much larger audience than most websites. 250 channels is nothing compared to a few billion websites. Second, cable TV channels get paid by the cable providers that carry them. Obviously, nobody wants this concept getting carried over to the Internet, where your choice of ISPs determines what websites you can view. And finally, there's a big difference in the ratio of content to advertisements on TV versus the internet. As much as we complain about obnoxious flash ads and the like, it's pretty rare to see a website where made up of more than 25% advertisements. And if you saw one, you probably wouldn't be very inclined to go back. Yet the typical TV show has about 8 minutes worth of advertisements for 22 minutes of content. And then they shove more ads on top of the content (those stupid banners for other shows that run in the corner of the screen) and even more ads into the content (product placement).

      I would disagree with the statement that Do Not Track would kill the Free Internet, but it's foolish to think it wouldn't dramatically alter the landscape. The simple fact is, non targeted advertising is worth less money, so websites will have to make that up somewhere. Some sites might go pay, others might just put in more ads, others might cut content or go bankrupt. And maybe, if we're lucky, some will come up with alternative business plans that people hate less, but everyone does need to remember what was once common sense, prior to the arrival of the internet: there's no such thing as a free lunch.

  3. Ads can still be relavent by similar_name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because a site can't track you doesn't mean they can't advertise to you. The content of the page you are viewing should provide enough context to provide an appropriate ad. Will it be less relevant to you? Possibly, but TV stations don't need to know everybody's individual viewing habits to know that Comedy Central should have ads aimed at young males while Lifetime shows ads for women.

    1. Re:Ads can still be relavent by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a site wants to track me all they need to do is offer me a compelling feature that requires that I sign in. Many sites are allowed to track me while I use their site, including Amazon, DealExtreme, Microsoft (hey, I still use Windows, I need their site) and so on. I have google analytics blocked because I don't want to be tracked across unrelated sites, though.

      On the other hand, nobody who can not offer me a compelling reason to form an actual business relationship with me should be tracking me, and if their business model can't sustain that, then the world will be a better place if they go out of business.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. scare tactics by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some people make a lot of money from ads. The net was here and functioning perfectly with lots of people. Then the advertisers showed up to make money. The people making money want to scare people into thinking it will all go away if they lose the money making machine. It will work just fine.

    The net was meant to be a collaborative medium. It was not meant to fuel profit into someones pocket as a distribution system. The net will function just fine if it is not leveraged into a money making distribution system.

  5. It will CLEAN the Internet by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The parties who get on the internet to conduct legitimate business and to share information and to collaborate will continue doing so JUST FINE.

    To parallel a little... badly... did the "Do Not Call" registry kill collections and telemarketing activities? Nope.

  6. In a word? by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Whenever a headline on Slashdot asks a question, the answer is No.

  7. Standard Advertiser FUD by JeanCroix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like VCRs and DVRs were supposed to have killed 'free' television programming...

    Just as AdBlock was supposed to have already killed 'free' internet...

    Next up: the shills shouting how using such tools "breaks the implied social contract" of viewing free content.