The Case For Targeted Ads

Irony not lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:02 · Score: 0

Published at a website that probably makes more from tracking and selling the data....

Re:Irony not lost by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-20 11:15 · Score: 5, Informative

The writer of this bullshit piece is the CEO of an advertising/tracking firm "33Across"
"Over 600,000 publishers and more than 375 Fortune 1000 marketers use 33Across’s Brand Graph technology, tools, and real-time predictive systems to connect their content and products into the social graph. Clients rely on their Brand Graph to leverage how individuals and the networks around them react to what is read, purchased, shared, and recommended in real-time. Reaching over a billion users, 33Across processes tens of thousands anonymous social engagement, influence, and interest actions that surround marketer and publisher brands each second."
Why do we even listen to these people?
Re:Irony not lost by TubeSteak · 2012-09-20 11:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do we even listen to these people?
"We" don't, but our elected representatives do.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Irony not lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:54 · Score: 0

ok. i'll play.
we don't listen.
we read. and post.
listening is archaic.
no one beyond the age of
55 does that to any degree.
Re:Irony not lost by kwerle · 2012-09-20 11:57 · Score: 2

Why do we even listen to these people?
We don't. But the editors put it on /., so there you go.
Re:Irony not lost by RKBA · 2012-09-20 12:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

"We" don't, but our elected representatives do.
More specifically, our elected representatives listen to their campaign contributions, bribes, etc.

--
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Re:Irony not lost by tnk1 · 2012-09-20 13:42 · Score: 1

And really, is an optional Do Not Track feature actually worse than the advertising "Armageddon" that Ad Block is?
I get that it is a problem (for them) when Microsoft flips out and enables DNT by default at all times, because then most people using IE will not be tracked, as opposed to the other way around. And let's face it, default IE users are probably their bread and butter as advertisers.
However, most browsers are not moving in that direction. And as long as MS can be reined in, things aren't going to change much because DNT will only be enabled by the same people who probably already use ABP and no one else. (Well, maybe Symantec will come up with a $50 "security tool" that activates it and pretends it is black magic or something, but I digress.)
Re:Irony not lost by tnk1 · 2012-09-20 13:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think we are sorely misstating the problem to say the problem is bribes or even contributions, even though both have influence, more or less.
The real problem is that representatives *have no fucking idea what they are talking about on most subjects*. If we ignore that tiny, but critical fact, we start realizing what a shitty idea it is to turn the operation of various industries over to their tender mercies. If we just pretend that it is possible to elect a white knight representative who will not take bribes, all this will get better. It won't. He or she will be honest, but just as useless as the current people.
We get these laws because the industries write these bills. Some of these bills are almost carbon copies of model legislation that the lobbyists hand representatives or their staffers. And even an honest rep is probably happy to have them, because they don't have the resources or the knowledge to properly regulate the industries that we've given them to regulate. That's why there is a revolving door, folks. The government needs people who know the industry, and the industry need people who know the government system. And every time we insist on even more regulation, we make industry people even more necessary to the government.
Who needs bribes when the only bribe you need is someone to do your homework for you so you can get your ass re-elected?
Re:Irony not lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:11 · Score: 0

Right, up until relatively recently Ford, Dow or MS could only contribute as much as you or I could before hitting the limits. They would then have limits per person, but apart from the memorable name there wasn't really that much draw.
The bigger issue is the lobbyists that come in and inform the representatives about the issue and may or may not include all the facts or even a balanced portion of the facts.
Re:Irony not lost by dgatwood · 2012-09-20 14:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Do Not Track is definitely far less damaging to ad-supported sites than ad blocking. Revenue from ads served to DNT users would be lower than tracked users because the ads wouldn't be targeted, but it would be nonzero.
One interesting aspect of DNT is that it doesn't cover tracking information gathered by the sites you visit for their own use. It covers only third-party tracking services, and only to the extent that the data is used by someone other than the first-party site. This means that Amazon can continue to track what people buy on their site. More significantly, as far as I can tell, there's nothing inherently preventing companies like Amazon from using that knowledge to serve ads based on the user's buying history on other sites, so long as they record the data only in aggregate (X site got N copies of ad Q) and do not in any way record the fact that a particular user visited the site. In that scenario, there's no tracking data being gathered according to DNT rules because all the data was gathered legitimately while the user was actually using and interacting with the (Amazon) ad network's first-party website.
Thus, the most likely result of DNT is the erosion of nameless, faceless tracking companies like doubleclick and the rise of ad networks built around sales platforms like Amazon, search networks like Google, and maybe, *maybe* social networking sites like Facebook. This is almost inarguably a good thing, as it will not only result in much better targeting of ads, but also a clear separation between your non-commerce activities on the Internet and the sorts of ads that you see.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Irony not lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 18:37 · Score: 0

Actually, some of us over 55, having noted in our later years complexities of life that we glossed over when younger, listen more now than we did earlier.
Re:Irony not lost by sabt-pestnu · 2012-09-20 18:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

> The real problem is that representatives *have no fucking idea what they are talking about on most subjects*.
This is a double-edged sword.
The one hand is that the ones that realize they don't know anything about (topic X) will turn to people they can identify as experts on (topic X) for information. Your homework task is to BE that person they turn to.
The other hand is that the ones who think they DO know something about (topic X) may well be wrong. And thus, get it wrong. Clipper chip. Internet censorship. Authority over the content and linkages of domains. Need I go on?
On the gripping hand, what are the implications of our representatives knowing precisely what they are talking about (for any given topic)? Such as, how did they all get that knowledge? And will they still be representing OUR interests?
Re:Irony not lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 19:07 · Score: 0

Maybe targeting could function correctly, but most targeting is done by showing advertisement of the exact same product that person is already buying. Instead of showing similar products; like I play EVE Online, so all game advertisements that are shown to me are all EVE Online. Wasted money for CCP.
Re:Irony not lost by Tom · 2012-09-20 21:00 · Score: 1

The real problem is that representatives *have no fucking idea what they are talking about on most subjects*
Politicians are Amateurs

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Irony not lost by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-09-21 00:42 · Score: 1

The unfortunate truth is that even without bribes it's all about jobs. That company alone likely employs more people than the majority of the individuals who would speak out against their practices do. And no politician would be willing to do something that so obviously "costs jobs". Political suicide.
Re:Irony not lost by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-21 00:51 · Score: 1

But you repeat yourself.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Irony not lost by jimbolauski · 2012-09-21 00:52 · Score: 1

Our representatives should be relying on their staffers for this kind of information, one man can't know everything and expecting such is foolish. Unfortunately staffers are chosen for more political reasons, and not for any expertise or knowledge they bring to different fields. There are two solutions that could fix this neither of which will ever happen, one simplify the our laws and regulations no more 2000 page bills, the other expect politicians or their staff to start reading and fully understanding the bill they are supporting.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Re:Irony not lost by Toad-san · 2012-09-21 01:58 · Score: 1

You're listening?
I question how that lying piece of crap ever got space on CNet .. which just took THAT POS off my reading list.
Re:Irony not lost by DriveDog · 2012-09-21 05:26 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, they usually didn't get it from the GAO (or whatever it's called these days) they fund, whose studies often have surprisingly decent analyses. Not that the studies would remain decent if legislators voted based on them. I suspect one reason they're often OK is because nobody thinks legislators are going to make decisions based on them.
Re:Irony not lost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:33 · Score: 0

+1 Motie reference
Re:Irony not lost by tnk1 · 2012-09-21 06:12 · Score: 1

Congressional staff is actually rather small, and their time is also limited. They will likely have things they know very well, but frequently they are just as much under siege by the lobbyists as their boss is. And they are the ones who actually do whatever reading of these 2000 page bills does get done.
Even if you removed their political focus, which would be difficult because representatives *do* need good political advice as well, there aren't enough staff resources to actually obtain proficiency in the needed areas.
Now, I do agree that one solution is shrinking bills down to a digestible size. The problem is, no one wants to do this because 1) if the government does regulate, details are important and 2) this is how they sneak unpopular riders in on bills that would otherwise be for something like "outlawing murder" or something else as ridiculously necessary and impossible to vote against.
It is getting to the point that I think we should devolve Congress into other elected bodies where people are elected for their expertise on a subject. Instead of committees that are populated via party seniority and backroom deals, those groups should be elected panels where the candidates can run on their ability to master the subject matter. In that way, at least we retain some elected influence over more details. The elected panels would return legislation to either Congress or be able to submit it all by themselves to the President or an elected subject matter Executive. The major problem, of course, would be how to do budgets, and that would need to be carefully worked out.
It would also be sort of nice, because then I could elect someone who believes in balanced budgets for one panel, and another person who is in favor of alternative energy sources for another. I don't have to choose one of two unacceptable people who will probably deliver neither.
Re:Irony not lost by dgatwood · 2012-09-21 06:44 · Score: 1

Amazon's targeting is pretty good. It is based on products you have looked at (but not bought), products that other people who have bought the products you have in your card have bought in the same order, etc. It isn't perfect, but it is halfway decent much of the time. And you can delete items from your browsing history if you don't want them to affect your suggestions (e.g. things you were pricing for a friend, etc.).

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Irony not lost by marcosdumay · 2012-09-21 06:50 · Score: 1

Well, maybe it is a good change, but I'll have to disagree with this phrase:

Do Not Track is definitely far less damaging to ad-supported sites than ad blocking.
Government sponsored Do Not Track will open the door for every weard kind of liability. While the worst case for ad-blocking is that the advertiser loses all his revenue, the governemnt can easily turn the worst case of Do Not Track into more of a "and we'll confiscate everything you have".

--
Rethinking email
Re:Irony not lost by manaway · 2012-09-21 07:31 · Score: 1

Thus, the most likely result of DNT is the erosion of nameless, faceless tracking companies like doubleclick and the rise of ad networks built around sales platforms like Amazon, search networks like Google, and maybe, *maybe* social networking sites like Facebook. This is almost inarguably a good thing...
Ummm in 2007 Google bought Doubleclick for $3 billion. Which still more or less supports your thesis, that advertising agencies and networks are becoming commerce sites, and vice versa. Though I would argue with the inarguable, and say the purposes and effectiveness of public relations and propaganda industries are not a "good thing."
Re:Irony not lost by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-21 08:44 · Score: 1

The writer's bio on his current website mentions a past leadership gig with CNet...

Isn't it Voluntary? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-09-20 11:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Isn't Do Not Track voluntary? The advertiser can choose not follow it, right? If so, what is all the fuss about?

Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-20 11:11 · Score: 1

Surely you aren't suggesting that the government should just allow consumers to speak ill of advertisers and other members of the better sort?
Clearly the horrors of 'do not track' are so great that we must have a law to forbid people from even expressing such a destructive preference.(Now, um, never you mind that I said that targeted advertising was awesome, and thus would theoretically be popular and simply outcompete DNT, that was, um, different for some reason! Targeted advertising is exciting and ought to be mandatory!)
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by b4dc0d3r · 2012-09-20 11:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

It is currently voluntary. A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips. Right now they read your mail (not the employees, but the servers), they track your searches, and if you have Android they know a lot more about you than you think. Do not track being mandatory would turn off a lot of their data gathering. And they are an advertising sales company, no matter what other products they bring to consumers. Just as with FaceBook, you are the product and your eyeballs are being sold to advertisers.
Microsoft intends to turn DNT on by default for IE 10, and even if you don't go with Windows 8 you might get some updates for Win7, if not actually IE 10, that set DNT accordingly. Now a huge browser market, including most people people who don't know what DNT is, nor do they care, will have it disabled by default. This pits Microsoft against Google in a huge way.
Aside from all of the other fallout that will happen by making it not just a standard, but a fine-inducing requirement, it will be essentially unenforceable in that it will be hard to prove tracking versus proper context-based targeted adverts. Pointless unenforceable laws/regulations that depend on politicians pretending to support their constituents on the small things so they can screw voters on the big things are not the way to a better internet. But that's what we're going to get when politicians get involved.
The fuss isn't about right now, it's about looking down the road and seeing oncoming traffic. A smart person would at least pull over, and assess whether a U-turn is in order, or getting off the road, or if maybe staying the course is in fact appropriate.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by jonsmirl · 2012-09-20 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative

The way to combat this is for every website that detects the DNT header to simply respond with a page saying how to turn it off or download a different browser. How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by LifesABeach · 2012-09-20 11:54 · Score: 1

When someone follows you, that's called "Stalking." And an un-invited person is refered to as an "ass."
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:55 · Score: 0

The locale issue can be easily enough dealt with without hurting privacy, you just go by the ISP. Unless you're the only one on the ISP it's unlikely that any private data would flow.
As for being bombarded by ads for things I can't use, I think that's preferable to being stalked by creepy advertisements. Plus, they're rarely for things I want or can use anyways. Most of the ads I see are for scams that just use the city I'm in to try and play to a sense of comradery with other people from the same city.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by sexconker · 2012-09-20 11:55 · Score: 0

The way to combat this is for every website that detects the DNT header to simply respond with a page saying how to turn it off or download a different browser. How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
I vastly prefer random ads to targeted ads. It's absolutely infuriating trying to get a good deal on hotels or airfare. I have to enable 3rd party cookies, turn of ghostery/noscript/adblock plus, and then browse to travel site a, look for something, browse to travel site b, look for the same thing, leave, and browse to travel site a and look for the same thing again to get a lower price.
Of course, my actual preference is for NO ads at all, which is why I block them fiercely.
Content creators can't make money without? Not my problem. If money is your focus, then make content worth selling on its own.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:59 · Score: 1

I think there is a subtle difference between targeted ads and tracking. Personally, I'm okay with using my IP address to get my general location or the context of my searches or the pages I'm on to target ads towards me. Compiling my every move on the other hand gets a little creepy. Unfortunately, instead of a healthy debate on where a line might be drawn, this country will argue two extremes and come up with a solution so mangled it will only benefit those with the pockets to understand it.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Nexion · 2012-09-20 12:03 · Score: 1

How about do not track me as an individual, but here is a list provided by my browser of things of which I'm interested. You cannot keep information about me in a DB, but I'll give you access to a DB of interests I have when I visit your site. Hey, I have no fear the "free internet" will collapse... that is straight bullshit. What I have a fear of is being overwhelmed with tampon, chick flick, makeup and my little pony adverts. I would love if all adds were as targeted to my interests as those present here on slashdot. Its no big secret... they know I'm a geek. I can disable the ads here too, but I'm just not motivated to do so as they are never obnoxious and often they are something of interest to me. Still for other sites I don't trust I rock noscript, ghostery and noredirect in firefox to mitigate attempts to cyber stalk me by ad companies.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 12:16 · Score: 1

How about do not track me as an individual, but here is a list provided by my browser of things of which I'm interested
Better still, use a private information retrieval protocol to fetch ads. Your browser knows what you are interested in, uses PIR to get some relevant ads, and shows them to you.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by fast+turtle · 2012-09-20 12:28 · Score: 1

except the locales issue applies in the United States due to the national ISP's. Simply put, some products are regional and can't be bought by me, yet I see ads for them all the time

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:47 · Score: 0

How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
I didn't forget; I just value my privacy more than shitty advertisements and don't even read ads to begin with (relevant or not).
That's why I block all but the most unobtrusive ads and don't even pay attention to the rest.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-09-20 12:58 · Score: 1

"It is currently voluntary. A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips."
No, they aren't. They aren't trying to make anything "mandatory". What they're pushing for, is to make it all opt-in only.

People will still have a choice. They only difference is, it will be truly voluntary, as opposed to the way it is now, which is not so much voluntary but sneaky.

YOU, and other Slashdotters, may be aware of how much you are tracked, but believe me, the vast majority of people do not.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by tepples · 2012-09-20 13:16 · Score: 1

If money is your focus, then make content worth selling on its own.
Authors will assume that your ad blocking means you think everything is worth selling. Enjoy your paywalls.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by tepples · 2012-09-20 13:19 · Score: 1

What I have a fear of is being overwhelmed with tampon, chick flick, makeup and my little pony adverts.
Which is why ads should have a thumbs down to mark an ad as irrelevant. I'd click thumbs down for the tampon, chick flick, and makeup ads. But what's wrong with My Little Pony? The latest iteration attracts a periphery demographic quite well.

Still for other sites I don't trust I rock noscript, ghostery and noredirect in firefox to mitigate attempts to cyber stalk me by ad companies.
If a web application depends on JavaScript, how should it earn your trust?
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Mr.+Slippery · 2012-09-20 13:24 · Score: 2

How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
I forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads, thank goodness. Since I ignore any ads I do see -- I never click -- they might as well be for products I cannot use.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-09-20 13:42 · Score: 1

To the advertisers I say, "Cry me a river!" Ads are one thing, but the privacy intrusion is what frosts me. I fear the overall trend is that privacy will erode further and further though, so this is a losing battle.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:11 · Score: 0

A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips.

Then Google should get another business plan, right? If we're going to complain about the MPAA and RIAA fighting to keep failing business plans why should we care to prop up the advertisers? If they can't make money other than through tracking and collecting untold amounts of data on people then they should go out of business.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 15:00 · Score: 0

I really don't care whether I'm being bombarded with ads for products that are or are not available to me: either way, I don't want the ads. So I use an ad-blocker.
The flaw with the do-not-track flag is that it's relying on advertisers to be honest in complying with it, which has roughly a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Ideally, browsers wouldn't implement features that allowed them to be tracked in the first place. (Hindsight, of course, is 20/20.)
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-09-20 15:30 · Score: 1

"I fear the overall trend is that privacy will erode further and further though, so this is a losing battle."
It's not a lost cause. The solution is actually quite simple. Making tracking opt-in only, and imposing harsh penalties for violations, can easily solve the problem.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 15:47 · Score: 0

EU tried to do something like this with their so-called Cookie law.
Thanks to big business, probably, but it's been watered down with things like "implicit consent" to be useless at best and annoying at most. Most sites (like Slashdot, for example), just quietly added a discreet "Cookies policy" link somewhere.
The only prominent mention of opting-in was on some news site I ended up at by following links from some story. It was a translucent overlay with a fixed centered notice to the effect "We've been told that we need your consent, so click Continue to opt in if you want to use our site" with no other way to close it. I stuck it to them by dastardly using scrollbar to read it without consenting.
In the end, I'd just expect most sites to tell users "It's opt-in way or highway" through pop-ups and ToS changes if legislations like this would get wider adoption.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-09-20 15:59 · Score: 2

The solution is actually quite simple. Making tracking opt-in only, and imposing harsh penalties for violations, can easily solve the problem.
Other have pointed out, that if you run a tech website then display tech ads. If you run a site about cats, post ads for cat food. There's *no need* for cookies following users around. Just display ads that are germane to what your site is about.
I was hating cookies back in the 90s. I understand the need for sites to make money. All this information we call the internet doesn't come free. Can we have a little restraint though please? Your idea of putting government in charge of advertising has only one fatal flaw: It assumes that governments will protect the interests of people better.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by 1u3hr · 2012-09-20 16:50 · Score: 1

Isn't Do Not Track voluntary? The advertiser can choose not follow it, right? If so, what is all the fuss about?/quote> That's the situation now, free for all.
He's afraid the FTC will make it mandatory, so advertisers can't simply track regardless. Also that browser makers are making DNT the default.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by 1u3hr · 2012-09-20 17:00 · Score: 1

the way to combat this is for every website that detects the DNT header to simply respond with a page saying how to turn it off

Yeah, right. They will forgo delivering pageviews of untargetted ads and try to twist your arm to make you allow them to track you. I don't think that's a winning strategy. If they did, users would respond by installing plugins that pretend to comply while supplying false tracking information.

How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
That describes 99% of the ads I see now.
The only "targetting" is get is ads telling me "18 year old lonely girl in $YOURLOCATION wants to fuck you now!" I can live without that crap
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-09-20 17:06 · Score: 1

"Your idea of putting government in charge of advertising has only one fatal flaw: It assumes that governments will protect the interests of people better."
You have misunderstood me. I have no intention or desire to "put government in charge" of what can be advertised where.

The only "government" part of this is simply mandating by law that people, web sites, info trackers, etc. cannot follow you around the internet and snoop into your affairs without your permission. That is all. Then the government doesn't decide what they can do, you do. That's a very different thing.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by davester666 · 2012-09-20 17:30 · Score: 1

Yes, all the ads on TV totally suck, because none of them are targeted specifically at me. And the Cable Industry as been on the brink of bankruptcy since forever because of it.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by rtb61 · 2012-09-20 17:37 · Score: 1

Gees don't believe the marketing lie targeted at people buying marketing. The whole tracking thing, was a yarn, spin to make internet advertising seem better than old world mass media advertising (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines). Also it is a very cunning means by which to cut advertising placements costs.
Reality is adds should always be targeted at the content not at people, the slip right through subconsciously when the align with the content the end user is perusing. Catch is all the content must be previewed to ensure correct add placement and that's a ton of stuff or a highly complex categorisation system to semi-automate it which will fail as greedy idiots will abuse it.
So tracking is nothing but perverted wet dreams of privacy invasive freaks sold onto people buying marketing with the hopes of being able to control peoples purchasing decisions, we will all become mass consumption zombies sold off to the highest bidder.
There is absolutely no point to tracking, want better ad placement then hire the staff to review content and ads and ensure they align. Hire the staff to communicate with content creators to ensure the content creators are happy with the ads being associated with their content. People buying adds need to hire staff to ensure their adds are being placed will. Come up with multiple views, so people buying adds can monitor their placement and make changes as they see fit based on outcomes and cost.
Tacking default should legally be off and a request should need to be made to use it and it should be confirmed upon a regular basis, even monthly.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 17:45 · Score: 0

It is currently voluntary. A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips.

Yea, thats so true, cause every user on the Internet is going to rush to turn it off just like you do ...
Most people will not care, and other services will flat out say 'if you want free, turn on tracking or get lost'
You guys are amazingly naive to think something massively different is going to happen because of DNT, even it if there was a federal law requiring it to be followed.
Don't believe me, shrug, hows that Do Not Call list working? Awesome of course, which is why the number of advertisers who request copies of the list drops year after year, nearly %50 this last year alone.
If you want to stop the advertising crap you have to convience PEOPLE TO STOP BUYING SHIT FROM THE ADS.
Its not going to stop as long as it works. Give it 15-30 years and it'll end as all the old people who still don't understand that you can't trust everyone on the planet to be honest and reputable.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 20:05 · Score: 0

How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
I kind of liked that. In a perverse commercialized way, it was like strolling through a city in a foreign country, taking in the smells and sounds of a different culture.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 20:48 · Score: 0

They will forgo delivering pageviews of untargetted ads and try to twist your arm to make you allow them to track you.
No, the page telling you how to turn DNT will already contain untargetted ads, carefully selected to appeal to the LEAST number of people, with a phrase saying "Do you really want to see ads like this? Here's how to see only the ads you want." If marketed right, plenty of people will happily just turn it back on, and probably be willing to fill out a form further detailing what they do and/or do not want to see.
Now, you can get your panties wadded up in a bunch about privacy, or you can realize that my very conservative Catholic grandmother does NOT want to see ads for birth control pills or penis enlargement products.

The only "targetting" is get is ads telling me "18 year old lonely girl in $YOURLOCATION wants to fuck you now!" I can live without that crap
And if they honor DNT, you'll still get that exact same ad. $yourlocation is taken from the geo-location information of your IP address, it's not associated with your browser at all and thus wouldn't even apply.
Look, I'm not a hater of privacy, I'm actually pretty big on it. But I advocate browser-based solutions which put the control in the hands of the user, and DNT puts it in the control of the website. The only way we will ever get around tracking and data collection is if we move the entire internet to something like Tor, which will never, ever happen because the ability to track people is highly important to law enforcement and other government agencies... in ALL countries on the planet.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 20:58 · Score: 0

The way to combat this is for every website that detects the DNT header to simply respond with a page saying how to turn it off or download a different browser. How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
I vastly prefer random ads to targeted ads. It's absolutely infuriating trying to get a good deal on hotels or airfare. I have to enable 3rd party cookies, turn of ghostery/noscript/adblock plus, and then browse to travel site a, look for something, browse to travel site b, look for the same thing, leave, and browse to travel site a and look for the same thing again to get a lower price.
Of course, my actual preference is for NO ads at all, which is why I block them fiercely.
Content creators can't make money without? Not my problem. If money is your focus, then make content worth selling on its own.
The fact that you are willing to unblock those sites to get your deals means it IS worth it to you. If you don't want to see the ads, the solution is simple- stop visiting their sites. If people were actually willing to PAY to access a site, they wouldn't have to rely on ads to support themselves.
The only reason I block ads using noscript is because scripts are a major security risk. Programs like adblock only encourage sites to move everything to script-based delivery so the blocks get circumvented, if people would allow static image ads the sites wouldn't work so hard to slide them past your adblocker.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 21:05 · Score: 0

"It is currently voluntary. A lot of people are pushing for it to be mandatory, which would practically chop Google's business plan off at the hips."
No, they aren't. They aren't trying to make anything "mandatory". What they're pushing for, is to make it all opt-in only.
People will still have a choice. They only difference is, it will be truly voluntary, as opposed to the way it is now, which is not so much voluntary but sneaky.
YOU, and other Slashdotters, may be aware of how much you are tracked, but believe me, the vast majority of people do not.
You misread the post. What he meant was that the push is to make it mandatory for the SITE to honor your DNT setting, where it is voluntary right now.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Golden_Rider · 2012-09-20 21:12 · Score: 1

except the locales issue applies in the United States due to the national ISP's. Simply put, some products are regional and can't be bought by me, yet I see ads for them all the time
How is that bad? Do you actually READ the ads?
I just ignore them, so I do not really care whether the ads are for something in my town or on some other continent.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 21:12 · Score: 0

"I fear the overall trend is that privacy will erode further and further though, so this is a losing battle."
It's not a lost cause. The solution is actually quite simple. Making tracking opt-in only, and imposing harsh penalties for violations, can easily solve the problem.
Who passes the laws? Who sets the penalties? Who enforces it? How?
Did you realize that the captcha we all fill out to post here on slashdot is loosely based on the subject material being discussed? Does this violate your idea of DNT? Why or why not? Should the Weather Channel be barred from defaulting to a weather map based on your IP's geo-location data?
The problem with DNT is that it's an empty effort which relies 100% on the sites to honor it, especially when they are in a different country. It's a bullshit feel-good smokescreen which takes away from what we should be pushing for- safer browsers which don't leak information. Example- there is no goddamn reason why my browser's ID string stays the same when it could easily be randomized for every website I visit, without installing plugins or jumping through technical hoops. Yet IE doesn't do this, and neither does firefox or Chrome, and nobody is even considering something like that. Instead they're saying "oh, well so what if we leave a unique ID for you all over the internet, we'll just tell people to ignore it." Yeah, talk about living in a fantasy world.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 21:17 · Score: 0

"Your idea of putting government in charge of advertising has only one fatal flaw: It assumes that governments will protect the interests of people better."
You have misunderstood me. I have no intention or desire to "put government in charge" of what can be advertised where.
The only "government" part of this is simply mandating by law that people, web sites, info trackers, etc. cannot follow you around the internet and snoop into your affairs without your permission. That is all. Then the government doesn't decide what they can do, you do. That's a very different thing.
the internet is like driving on a public road with a license plate. you are advocating passing a law saying "don't look at the license plate" instead of just taking the damn plate off the car and actually solving the issue.
you shouldn't be bitching about a site giving you a cookie, you should be bitching about why your browser is storing it and giving it out to someone else. we need to work for a more secure protocol which doesn't leak information instead of just telling sites that they aren't allowed to look at the data which is already leaking.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-09-20 21:24 · Score: 1

You have a lot of faith in government. Look, I *agree* with you. I think it all ought to be to explicit opt-out. I'm just sayin' that the government wouldn't be much of a better steward of the public interest than advertisers are. Too many people being paid off, too many lobbyists. I still predict things'll only get worse.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by gnasher719 · 2012-09-20 22:25 · Score: 2

How about do not track me as an individual, but here is a list provided by my browser of things of which I'm interested.

Shows that you don't have a clue what this is about. The advertisers don't care who you are. They care about _what_ you are, gathered together from little bits and pieces of information.

But what I hate is that you can't know what I am interested in from my browser. I have searched extensively for information on behalf of others. Those searches have _nothing_ to do with my interests. I bought Christmas presents. They have nothing to do with my interests. I bought several of a series of books from Amazon after buying the first ones in a shop; Amazon wouldn't forget about the ones that I didn't buy from Amazon and wouldn't give up on offering them again and again. I made the mistake of buying Justin Bieber tickets for my granddaughter and her friends. Guess what. Bloody information trackers think that I like the little gnat.

But worst is that my computer is not my computer, it is shared with my wife. If you look at my eBay purchases you will think that I am schizophrenic or very weird - in reality it is purchases from two people mixed up. I received targetted ads based on a Christmas present that she bought for me, which somehow spoilt the surprise. So fuck targeted ads.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by realityimpaired · 2012-09-20 23:10 · Score: 1

Being bombarded with ads for products/services I can't use wasn't the problem. Having a flash applet take over the screen, or a hundred popups that spawned 10 new windows when you closed them was.
I don't have a problem with advertising. I actually like that Google Adsense is relatively unobtrusive and tends to show stuff that at least makes sense (though I have my browser in private browsing mode 100% of the time, so as soon as I close the browser most of its contextual data is gone, and since I get my gmail on my phone, I'm usually not logged in to a Google account on the browser). But a *lot* of ads behave very badly, which is why I have ABP installed on my systems, and won't be removing it any time soon. If the ad industry is worried about their revenues, they should self govern better, and prevent their colleagues from annoying users enough that they seek out solutions like ABP in the first place.
Do Not Track is a solution in search of a problem. Most users don't seem to care enough about it to be bothered, or actually appreciate that the ads they see are at least somewhat contextual. Truthfully, I probably wouldn't bother enabling it, if I didn't already have ABP installed... the *real* problem is the behaviours that led me to install ABP in the first place.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-09-21 00:04 · Score: 1

Shows that you don't have a clue what this is about. The advertisers don't care who you are. They care about _what_ you are, gathered together from little bits and pieces of information.
Yet everyone has their panties in a knit because an advertiser has a cookie that notates your behavior, doesn't know shit about you but does know what you probably like. They equate this to advertisers reading your facebook posts, your e-mail, etc, and building a profile about you like Fat Boy in Shibumi.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Compaqt · 2012-09-21 01:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, this. I mean, if you can't stand ads, run an adblocker. But what's the point of DNT?
I see ads for Dell servers, iWeb web hosting, and some other stuff I've viewed recently. That makes sense because I'm in the market for that stuff.
What's the point of seeing ads for The Clapper and pet rocks when I'm not interested in that?
Consider: tracked ads mean that you can go to a website with a highly esoteric subject matter, and still get an ad that you're interested in. Otherwise, it's hard to see what kind of ad you could see for a site on medieval history. You wouldn't have such a site even existing.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by tilante · 2012-09-21 02:18 · Score: 1

I've had that problem as well -- buy a few presents for someone, then get tons of ads targeted at that. I think part of the problem is over-sensitivity to "trends" in the algorithms -- that is, giving too much weight to the most recent purchases.
On the subject of Amazon... Amazon thankfully has a way to tell it "I already own this" when it recommends something... but I've never found a way to do that when it doesn't recommend the thing in question. I've got a book series I've been buying that I'd *love* to pro-actively go through and tell Amazon the dozen-odd titles I already have, so it won't keep recommending them, but right now, I'm having to wait for it to recommend each one. That gets worse because it's an old series (started in the late '50s) which went through many editions... and each edition of each book is listed separately. Thus, I've had to tell it that I already have some of the books four times -- once for each of the editions it was printed in.
Amazon also allows you to go into your past purchases and specify which ones you don't want them to base recommendations off of, which is helpful. Unfortunately, there's no such option for things that you simply looked at.
Also, their recommendations sometimes seem to need a little more intelligence. Offering similar books to someone who's bought books make sense. Offering other brands of PVRs to someone who just bought a PVR doesn't. In my case, I recently bought a fencing mask... and now Amazon is constantly recommending other fencing masks to me. I only have one head. I don't need two fencing masks.
This is getting a bit rambly, so to sum up -- I don't mind targeted ads, especially from retailers who I'm buying things from. However, I do wish they'd allow me more input of the "don't recommend this again" and "don't use this for future recommendations" sort, and that they'd apply some world-logic to their recommendations as well. Amazon has made a good start on the first part. The idea someone posted further up of having a standardized way to up-vote and down-vote ads seems like a good one. And I do believe that they should allow people to opt out of the tracking entirely, if that's their wish.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by sexconker · 2012-09-21 03:52 · Score: 0

If money is your focus, then make content worth selling on its own.
Authors will assume that your ad blocking means you think everything is worth selling. Enjoy your paywalls.
I will! 99.9% of the content on the internet is of no interest to me, and of that .1% that I'm interested in, 99% of it is shit. If everything were paywalled the shit would go away,
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by sexconker · 2012-09-21 03:54 · Score: 0

The ads and targeting is not what's worth it, it's the $100+ difference between the sucker price and the advertised price.
Saying I like targeted ads because I'm forced to unblock them when I want the real price is like saying I like car salesman because I spend time haggling with them to get a decent price on a car.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by timftbf · 2012-09-21 04:26 · Score: 1

But worst is that my computer is not my computer, it is shared with my wife. If you look at my eBay purchases you will think that I am schizophrenic or very weird - in reality it is purchases from two people mixed up. I received targetted ads based on a Christmas present that she bought for me, which somehow spoilt the surprise. So fuck targeted ads.
You're aware of this idea where you can have separate user accounts, even on the same computer, right?
Forget targetted ads - I don't want the same wallpaper as anyone else who uses the computer, I don't want the same icons, I don't want them in the same places, I don't want the same applications preferences.
We both use computers enough these days that I wouldn't want to share the hardware any more. Sharing the settings was rubbish in Windows 3.1 in 1993, let alone nearly 20 years later.
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by marcosdumay · 2012-09-21 06:57 · Score: 1

Which is why ads should have a thumbs down to mark an ad as irrelevant.
It has, you just don't clck on it. The problem is that there are lots of people "liking" the ads you don't like.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by scot4875 · 2012-09-21 07:15 · Score: 1

How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
Wait -- when did this bombardment end? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Isn't it Voluntary? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-09-21 16:20 · Score: 1

"You have a lot of faith in government. Look, I *agree* with you. I think it all ought to be to explicit opt-out. I'm just sayin' that the government wouldn't be much of a better steward of the public interest than advertisers are. Too many people being paid off, too many lobbyists. I still predict things'll only get worse."
No, we're still not on the same channel. I have very, very little faith in government.

Nevertheless, a law saying "thou shalt not aggregate user information without the explicit permission of that user" is a very simple thing, and can be enforced pretty simply. Government doesn't even have to do much work, because it is people who use the services who will discover the transgressions... just as they always have.

Not much room for lobbyists to bypass such a simple law.

The problem, commenter, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:04 · Score: 1

The problem is more people will listen to this shill than your words, ever.

Luckily they will put two and fuckall together and realize he's a douche who does things they don't want. (re: targetted 'tracking/advertising'.

Do Not Track is one of the better-named ideas, quite unlike your usual Protect Child I.P. act and the usual sludge.

Re:The problem, commenter, by Quakeulf · 2012-09-20 11:12 · Score: 2

I wish that in my unfathomable, uncontrollable rage did not reply to this thread otherwise I'd mod this comment up.

Two words: by Quakeulf · 2012-09-20 11:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fuck. You.

Re:Two words: by Blue+Stone · 2012-09-20 11:25 · Score: 1

But unless you stop deleting cookies, TEH INtARNeTS AS WE DONE KNoW IT GOES BOOM!

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:31 · Score: 0

Challenge Accepted!
Re:Two words: by girlintraining · 2012-09-20 11:57 · Score: 2

Fuck. You.
I'm trying to figure out why swearing is considered insightful... but I got nothin'.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Two words: by mister_playboy · 2012-09-20 13:24 · Score: 2

You post history provides zero evidence that you are actually swearing-averse, so I conclude you must be an advertiser.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:Two words: by girlintraining · 2012-09-20 13:25 · Score: 2

You post history provides zero evidence that you are actually swearing-averse, so I conclude you must be an advertiser.
For a limited time only, my bullshit is 20% off regular price...

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 20:32 · Score: 0

Fuck. You.
I'm trying to figure out why swearing is considered insightful... but I got nothin'.
I'm trying to figure out why swearing is considered insightful... but I got nothin'.
Eric Wheeler gave what is effectively a big "Fuck You!" to the general public. Quakeulf recognized that fact and responded in kind. Moderators also.
Unsolicited advertising industry "professionals" specialize in being superficially polite (e.g. using superficially polite language) while in reality being extremely rude (eg. using deceptive language.)
Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 00:45 · Score: 0

It represents an unequivocal rejection of the proposed idea.
By presenting the rejection simply and forcefully, it maximizes the impact of an otherwise simple statement.
I strongly agree with the sentiments of the GP.
Fucketyfuckfuckfuck
Re:Two words: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 08:20 · Score: 0

Last time I posted "Fuck you" as a general response to an article (as AC), it got modded up to +5 insightful. This was during European time. When the USA woke up, it got modded straight down to zero, flamebait.
So are the good people of the USA very sensitive souls? I see the OP has already gone from +5 to +3. Maybe the downmodding will stop there, since he has an account?
Or maybe Americans are pussies :)

Bullshit by girlintraining · 2012-09-20 11:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

So what? It could be a three hundred quintillion dollar industry. It doesn't change the ethics, morals, or the fact that most people don't want it. Advertising has been shoved down people's throats. It's been put in places where it was promised not to appear. It eats away at our culture, it deadens people's nerves, and it saturates everything it comes in contact with. It is a plague -- and it needs reform. It is an industry without regulation, without controls, and with an insatiable appetite.

And not a one of them are for reasonable controls. It was only recently, and after fighting tooth and nail, that we even got them to stop screwing with the volume on our TVs. Fuck them -- when they learn to be responsible, then maybe I'll learn to give a damn whether they get thrown under a bus or not. But probably not.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Bullshit by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 11:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's the money. All the way down.
Pretty impressive diatribe by an advertising executive. He probably eats the Wheaties box for breakfast.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Bullshit by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-20 11:17 · Score: 2

Actually, the larger the valuation for the industry, the worse it is, since the size of the industry is what gives you an idea of how much is being bled off from sectors that wouldn't be better off if set on fire.
Re:Bullshit by Seumas · 2012-09-20 11:21 · Score: 2

I'll just never get the point of any of it and I'll never understand why people would rather get something for free than pay a little and get ads.
First, when someone says "hey, shut up, you can't complain about it because it's free". Bullshit. Charge me a buck a month or something. If you're a worthwhile service, my sanity and reducing the visual clutter of everything is worth a buck to me. Give me the damn *choice* to decide what is more important to me. Let me decide if I want to be the product or if I want your service to be the product and pay you for it. You know, like real life. Value for value transaction.
Second, I don't need targeted advertising, anyway. No amount of advertising changes how many tubes of toothpaste I need in a year or how much food I need to buy or how often my dishwasher has to be replaced. And when those things ARE needed, I will go investigate to find out what fits the bill and what has the best reputation, quality, price, etc. Throwing up a giant advertisement somewhere saying "HEY COME BUY OUR KITCHENWARE!" is meaningless. It's like the idiots who come to my door every god damn day all summer long, trying to sell me new siding or windows or sprinkler systems or insulation. If I was in the market for those things, wouldn't I already be looking at them? Who the hell says "why, yes, stranger -- now that a totally anonymous person has come to my door, I guess I *do* need some roofing done!".
Advertising -- targeted or not -- is just a fucking nuisance.
Re:Bullshit by girlintraining · 2012-09-20 11:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, the larger the valuation for the industry, the worse it is, since the size of the industry is what gives you an idea of how much is being bled off from sectors that wouldn't be better off if set on fire.
Hey, I'm not saying advertising doesn't have its place. I'm not even saying companies shouldn't be allowed to spend as much as they want on it. I happen to believe in freedom of speech, even speech I disagree with. But I also have the right to ignore others' speech, or to respond with speech of my own. Legislating away that choice is wrong -- and that's what this guy is advocating. Well, fuck him. His position isn't just unethical, it's unamerican. Nobody has a right to shove their own beliefs down other people's throats and that statement doesn't change because money is involved, even a lot of money.
If people hang a "no soliciting" sign on the door of their home or business, it should be respected. In many jurisdictions, there's a penalty if you don't. If you add your phone number to the "do not call" list, that also has to be respected. It's even required by law in cases where the other party is owed money. The right to free speech doesn't include the right to be heard: I can walk away. That doesn't change just because the speech is digital instead.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Bullshit by rgbrenner · 2012-09-20 11:28 · Score: 1

Charge me a buck a month or something.
In fantasy land, this would work. They might only earn $1 off your visits for a year.. but if you had to pay, the bill would be more like $50/year.. because 49 other people would have refused to pay anything.
Of course, then you would say, $50/year is outrageous, and you're not going to pay
So in REALITY, the site would have 0 customers, and would be shutdown.
So the question is.. if you don't like the ads on the site.. WHY DO YOU GO THERE?
WHY are you here on slashdot for example? And I noticed you chose not to pay for a slashdot subscription either.
Way to stand up for your hard line against advertising.
Re:Bullshit by TubeSteak · 2012-09-20 11:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
If you cannot innovate; legislate.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:29 · Score: 0

Exactly. It could be a trillion dollar industry, but there are plenty of repugnant industries out there, such as dog fighting that make a ton of cash.
Its simple: Targeted ads are trespass, pure and simple. They are not asked for, but foisted upon us.
We have seen this shit before. Remember how popup ad makers whined that the whole Internet will collapse once MS put a blocker in IE?
As for DNT, it is cute and all, but I like coupling that with an IP level filter on my router, DNS level filtering, and an Adblock filter. Until ad servers (except Google which has been good with non-intrusive text ads) stop allowing malicious software through their ad-rotators (one of the primary causes of infected Windows boxes), I will continue to treat their stuff as malicious code or potentially malicious.
Re:Bullshit by fustakrakich · 2012-09-20 11:29 · Score: 2

It could be a three hundred quintillion dollar industry.
Whoa! That's almost the entire derivatives market.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Bullshit by fustakrakich · 2012-09-20 11:33 · Score: 2

He probably eats the Wheaties box for breakfast.
Probably tastes better than the bag.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Bullshit by klingers48 · 2012-09-20 11:35 · Score: 2

This isn't specifiically about internet advertising, but it is relevant. Last week I paid $20 to see a movie at my local cinema. I also paid another $15 for stale popcorn and watery soda.

I then had to sit through what they had the audacity to call a "pre-show programme" which consisted of (I timed it) 3 previews totalling about 6 minutes together and close to 15 minutes of advertising.

This shit is in my face, wasting my time and adding no value. Based on the prices I'm paying at the box-office it's also not cross-subsidizing my moviegoing experience either... So how am I benefiting?

You can also apply this back to a doomsayer's future where half the web is behind paywalls. Will the ads magically disapear, considering that unlike print magazines the cost of delivery is as logistically close to zero as you can get? Or will I still be paying a premium price to have annoying ads plastered all over my content?

Also, I might be in the minority here but I'm actually less likely to react positively to targetted advertising. I find it offensive and creepy, not "relevant".
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:41 · Score: 0

If you can't sustain yourself based on subscriptions, donations, etc then you have a failed business model. Boo wah hoo.
Re:Bullshit by girlintraining · 2012-09-20 11:50 · Score: 1

If you cannot innovate; legislate.
A lot of businesses consider legislation to be innovative. Some of them are in the news right now for suing their competitors to keep their products out of the marketplace. Others are being sued or investigated by various governments for anticompetitive practices that consist of making their product incompatible with a competitors', and then using the law to keep them from reverse engineering compatibility back in.
A large number of lawyers is now as important as a large number of engineers these days; That is, if you don't want to go out of business. So maybe businesses created the problem, but government allowed it, and government supports it now. It doesn't matter whether the chicken came first or the egg, the problem is that corporations and businesses cooperate in furthering the status quo. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses. There is only one government: It seems clear where the change needs to come from.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Bullshit by nbauman · 2012-09-20 12:01 · Score: 1

I sympathize with the advertising industry, and the companies like Google that have done so many kewl things with the money they made out of Internet ads.
But the Internet killed off the newspaper and magazine business, where I used to work. At one time, newspapers in every city would hire a lot of reporters to spend a lot of time following the issues and informing their readers what was going on. Now they've been laying off their reporters, they're down to skeleton crews, and some of the great newspapers went out of business. The advertising, much as I hated it, was paying the bills. Now it's decimated. Blogs are nice, but they really don't replace the newspaper model that served pretty well for the last 2 or 3 centuries.
Technology improves, we got what we wished for, the market changes, and there are winners and losers. (There are a lot more losers than most of us expected.) If people delete their cookies every morning, it might make it harder for web advertisers to make money, but we've all got problems. Let the market rule, it will anyway. This isn't tragic enough to give these guys a government favor.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:14 · Score: 0

"failed business model"?
Wake up and see the fucking world - Advertising is an incredibly successful business model, *why* should it be changed? You don't want to see ads? Tough shit, pay for the service with your cash then. But guess what? Most people are perfectly happy to see an ad in exchange for a "free" service.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:16 · Score: 0

I like it how whenever web advertising topic comes up none of those who claim "I'd rather pay, but see no ads!" (usually continued with "And if it withers and dies, it probably wasn't worth visiting anyways!") have a /. subscription.
Or maybe you're all just modest and hit "No subscriber bonus" checkbox? If so, I apologize. But otherwise it looks rather hypocritical.
Re:Bullshit by DrEldarion · 2012-09-20 12:25 · Score: 1

People don't want targeted ads? That's completely made up. Maybe a tiny subclass of people don't, but people at large do. Why do you think they work so well? If you're a guy, haven't you complained about TV ads for tampons?
Face it - ads are a part of life, and if you're going to have to see them anyway, they may as well be for things you'd be interested in. I'll take ads for video games, car products, and electronics over random ONE WEIRD TIP FOR WHITENING YOUR TEETH shit any day.
Looking at it another way, sites expect to earn a certain amount of money. If the ads are less effective because they're not targeted, then the ads will become more annoying. If the ads are blocked, then the ads will become unskippable (think: interstitials, sites blocking people who block ads, etc).
A world without targeted ads would be a lot more annoying than the present.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:41 · Score: 0

Tough shit, pay for the service with your cash then. But guess what?
Oh I know the answer to this one!
I pay $120 per year to access a newspaper's website and they still try to show me ads. That's what.
Re:Bullshit by cheekyjohnson · 2012-09-20 13:01 · Score: 1

So the question is.. if you don't like the ads on the site.. WHY DO YOU GO THERE?
The content of the website might be more valuable than avoiding ads. They might be blocking said ads.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Bullshit by Zadaz · 2012-09-20 13:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing I I do want it. I would love it if I was only shown ads which were for things that I was truly interested in. It would be wonderful if ads were a product discovery service.
Except they're not. There's not enough margin in that and that's not how advertisers want to reach me.
Take for example and of the music streaming services. Pandora, Spotify, Last.fm, etc. They know exactly what music you like to listen to. So it should be a slam-dunk to target ads to you for stuff you're interested in. Sell you the album you're listening to, sell you tickets to a local show of any of your favorite artists. Hell, alert you some TV show, movie, or game that uses your favorite music in the soundtrack.
But no. You get adverts for songs, artists, and genres that you've explicitly told you never want to hear again. The service that can have surprisingly good accuracy when suggesting new music and artists is quite literally tone deaf when suggesting ads.
The only explanation is that the record labels are dumping so much money to promote X that they buy up all the available slots, whether its appropriate or not. They still think we're listening to the radio and are not an infinitely fragmented audience, so they throw money at it to keep the little guy out. The little guy who would most benefit targeted ads. And the streaming services let them do this, even though it's a disservice to their listeners because the listeners aren't their customers, the record companies are, and they're already on thin ice with them to begin with. So they'll do what it takes to keep them happy.
Now that's just streaming music, but the same factors apply in other areas where targeted ads could work if the players had any interest in playing that game.
Re:Bullshit by readin · 2012-09-20 13:13 · Score: 1

My favorite part of living in a foreign country was not being able to understand the ads. I missing being able to go for days on end without having my intelligence insulted, without having products crassly attached to my fond emotions and memories, without having to constantly deaden my reactions to the constant mental assault.

--
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Re:Bullshit by c0lo · 2012-09-20 13:34 · Score: 1

Of course, then you would say, $50/year is outrageous, and you're not going to pay
So in REALITY, the site would have 0 customers, and would be shutdown
Really? I'm paying $50/year subscription to Orson Scott Cards e-zine. I'm doing it for a second year already, and... yes... it is still there, haven't been shutdown.
How's that as the single counterexample necessary to show the falsity of your statement?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Bullshit by KiloByte · 2012-09-20 13:42 · Score: 2

I do not want targetted ads. For two reasons: targetted, and ads.
You say "ads are a part of life" -- so is pollution and diseases. Proponents of pollution say "but it allows the industry to produce cheaper goods this way", proponents of diseases would want to ensure steady income for pharma companies.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 15:09 · Score: 0

I think that companies should be able to spend as much as they like on advertising - but I don't think that trademark law should protect the brand value they build by doing so. Trademarks are supposed to protect the brand value you build by selling a superior product. If you advertise your trademark, you should lose that trademark. One simple rule, infringing no freedoms, which would free up enormous resources currently spent on advertising for more productive use.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 15:54 · Score: 0

That's because Slashdot isn't worth the money. Also, they let people disable the ads so what's the incentive?
Re:Bullshit by 1u3hr · 2012-09-20 17:15 · Score: 1

"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence." -- Bill Hicks
Re:Bullshit by tlhIngan · 2012-09-20 17:23 · Score: 1

So what? It could be a three hundred quintillion dollar industry. It doesn't change the ethics, morals, or the fact that most people don't want it. Advertising has been shoved down people's throats. It's been put in places where it was promised not to appear. It eats away at our culture, it deadens people's nerves, and it saturates everything it comes in contact with. It is a plague -- and it needs reform. It is an industry without regulation, without controls, and with an insatiable appetite.

Advertising IS culture. Hell, old ads are often highly collectible items the reflect on an earlier time. History books don't generally include much pop culture in them, but advertising is a huge reflection of the cultural attitudes and beliefs of the day. And don't forget that a lot of things are ads - from movie posters to TV shows (the show itself, not the ad break). Hell, word of mouth is considered advertising because it's spreading something - be it a new open-source program, movie theatre, new smartphone, computer, whatever.
There were some highly offensive ads back in the day dealing with all sorts of things. A modern history book may make reference, but it can't really capture the extent that people allowed it to get to as compared to some advertising from the era. It's really a reflection of societal values of the era. (Advertising was often the quickest to jump on new trends, the the fastest to ditch what became unacceptable - it's only good business after all).
That said, ads back then didn't try to track or stalk people. You may see a Coca-Cola ad button on a wall, or a Pepsi one, but they didn't track you. What makes online advertising so annoying is that they track you around, following you. With Google doing it, it's even worse because they profile you. And who know what sorts of information you leak. Basically it's creating a profile of you that probably contains stuff you don't know about yourself, and it's all available to the highest bidder. That's scary. "Old media" ads didn't try to track you, profile you or gather information about you. And trying to fake out results is extremely hard (humans are bad at it - like trying to generate random numbers in your head). With enough of a profile, Google can easily discern what stuff you're doing that's trying to poison the data, and what you really normally do.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 17:47 · Score: 0

So what? It could be a three hundred quintillion dollar industry. It doesn't change the ethics, morals, or the fact that most people don't want it.

If people didn't want it, it wouldn't be an industry. Its an industry and as large of one as it is because people keep buying shit from the ads. Its not going anywhere as long as it works.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 18:17 · Score: 0

Your client, is requesting those adds. Since you are controlling your client, by extension you are requesting them.
If you don't like them, get a user agent that does not request them.
Technically, you are saying "Oh yay, an add.. give it to me!"
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 19:22 · Score: 0

Swearing and complaining apparently buys you credit here, but is no solution to the problem. Consider that the internet basically runs on advertising. Yes, it is annoying. But it's also very useful, for a number of reasons. "Fuck them" certainly is the wrong approach.
Re:Bullshit by able1234au · 2012-09-20 20:18 · Score: 1

rather ironic given that http://www.billhicks.com/ is covered with ads and looks so poorly designed that he could use a marketing person to clean it up.
Re:Bullshit by martin-boundary · 2012-09-20 23:31 · Score: 1

The thing I I do want it. I would love it if I was only shown ads which were for things that I was truly interested in. It would be wonderful if ads were a product discovery service.

That's great. What we really need is a little sandbox for people like you, say a TLD like .advertising, where you could browse to and watch ads all day, or however long you like. Then, for the rest of us, advertisements could be banned from all the other domains. You get to be happy, and we get to be happy too. Deal?

Except they're not. There's not enough margin in that and that's not how advertisers want to reach me.

Yes, we know. And that's why we have to censor them everywhere, with prejudice, via technical means.
Re:Bullshit by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-09-20 23:43 · Score: 1

What's the matter, it is just the wealthy engaging in the free market for government and investing in legislators. They are just putting their money to where it is the best return.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:Bullshit by martin-boundary · 2012-09-20 23:43 · Score: 0

Advertising is _propaganda_. Thus, it's _correlated_ with pop culture, but isn't actually pop culture. Don't confuse the two.
Re:Bullshit by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-09-20 23:44 · Score: 1

"sites expect to earn a certain amount of money. "
You've just described profit push inflation.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Re:Bullshit by martin-boundary · 2012-09-20 23:47 · Score: 1

If BUSINESSES didn't want it, it wouldn't be an industry.

There fixed that for you.
Re:Bullshit by martin-boundary · 2012-09-20 23:50 · Score: 1

Wrong. Technically, the browser is saying "oh yay, a link! Give it to me!" And then the human driver says "berkk, an ad, get rid of it".
Don't confuse a mechanical piece of software with a sentient being who can make binding legal decisions.
Re:Bullshit by cyborg_zx · 2012-09-21 00:02 · Score: 1

Uhhh, I don't think he gets much of a say over it from six feet under.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:33 · Score: 0

the newspapers went out of business because:
a) they are no longer the place for 'breaking news', the news breaks on twitter and facebook, and via various other worth of mouth internet venues
b) the vast majority of print news never offered anything beyond 'breaking news', they certainly don't check their facts and assumptions, they go for sensationlising over actual reporting. I can subscribe to reuters feed just fine thank you, I don't need the middleman. I get all the sensationalizing I need from the gossip-grapevine, don't need conventional media for that either.
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:53 · Score: 0

What free service do people receive when they pay $15 for a movie ticket and then sit through 20 minutes of ads?
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:09 · Score: 0

So what did the internet run on before advertising? I assure you there was such a time - I was there.
Re:Bullshit by FitForTheSun · 2012-09-21 02:15 · Score: 1

Agreed. It is preposterous to claim that advertising will ever become consumer friendly. That is total nonsense. Only rubes accept that.
Re:Bullshit by Ltap · 2012-09-21 04:37 · Score: 1

I agree. The GP basically presents two options: either a world of "untargeted" advertising (where everyone is annoyed by ads, but less swayed by them) and an insidious, manipulative, exploitative world of targeted ads. I'd prefer a third option.

--
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:49 · Score: 0

... and what is that third option? Companies aren't going to run these services for free. People aren't going to pay for them. What do you suggest?
Re:Bullshit by CCarrot · 2012-09-21 05:04 · Score: 1

So what? It could be a three hundred quintillion dollar industry. It doesn't change the ethics, morals, or the fact that most people don't want it.
If people didn't want it, it wouldn't be an industry. Its an industry and as large of one as it is because people keep buying shit from the ads. Its not going anywhere as long as it works.
Exact same argument has been made for the persistence of spam. Does that make it legitimate or desirable to society? Does that mean we should ban all spam filtering, everywhere?
No. Advertising at the extreme scale we see it now is a parasitical drain on society. Targeted advertising just adds a more personalized, boot-in-the-face type insult to the injury. People should have the right and the capability to tell the asshats to fuck off and leave us alone.

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:26 · Score: 0

...but the same factors apply in other areas where targeted ads could work if the players had any interest in playing that game.
Maybe there should be a "report this ad" button on each advertisement. Clicking it could bring up a choice of reasons (too intrusive; offensive; irrelevant; etc.) to select. That way we could provide direct feedback to advertisers of what methods and ads are annoying and which are successful.
Re:Bullshit by marcosdumay · 2012-09-21 07:12 · Score: 1

Sell you the album you're listening to, sell you tickets to a local show of any of your favorite artists. Hell, alert you some TV show, movie, or game that uses your favorite music in the soundtrack.
But no. You get adverts for songs, artists, and genres that you've explicitly told you never want to hear again. The service that can have surprisingly good accuracy when suggesting new music and artists is quite literally tone deaf when suggesting ads.
That looks like a great business model. Will the RIAA extraditate me into the US if I try to create something like what you want?

--
Rethinking email
Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 08:12 · Score: 0

The problem with advertising is that it's a tragedy of the commons situation. People selling products would all be better off if no one advertised. That advertising budget could be spent elsewhere or just added to the profits the business collected. But advertising works and, if a competitor is using it, they will be more successful than their non-advertising competitors are. So everyone is forced to advertise and a portion of the profits from nearly every industry are siphoned off.
The only tangible benefit that advertising serves is the limited function of informing consumers as to their available options. If advertising were ended today, that void would need to be filled somehow. But I think we can all agree that it could be filled in a way that's far less insidious, more up-front and honest and more in line with the interests of the product-producers and the consumers purchasing those products.

Do Not Track is not a problem by rgbrenner · 2012-09-20 11:09 · Score: 2

Do Not Track is not a problem.. because it will never seriously be implemented. It's just a request, and it will be ignored by every advertising company there is.

1) it's a $300 billion industry
2) targeted ads are more effective.
so 3) if your ad company implements DNT, you will be less effective, and your clients will go where their ads (and $) are more effective -- which is where DNT is not implemented.

No one is going to give up billions (or their jobs) to implement DNT.. any ad company that does will be out-competed by their competitors and die.

And NO consumer is going to pay to have DNT. If consumers REALLY cared about targeted ads, they wouldn't happily post every details of their lives on facebook.

Re:Do Not Track is not a problem by postbigbang · 2012-09-20 11:24 · Score: 1

Which is why others use proxies, noscript, ghostery, and other blockers to both obscure our addresses, and confound these jerks. Trust DNT? Not really.
But it's painful for the big data analysis engines, the advertisers, and the data whores. And if it's a bit painful for Uncle Sam, sorry about that, but get out of my biz.
Remember that you're playing with the business models of corporations that believe they have every right to know all things about your, for their purposes, not yours.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Do Not Track is not a problem by rgbrenner · 2012-09-20 11:31 · Score: 1

Which is why a very small percent others use proxies, noscript, ghostery, and other blockers
FTFY
1% use blockers.. 1% opt-out (by not using the site), and 98% are busy posting what they ate for breakfast on facebook.
Re:Do Not Track is not a problem by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 11:40 · Score: 1

If consumers REALLY cared about targeted ads, they wouldn't happily post every details of their lives on facebook.
Most people have no idea about what Facebook is collecting about that, which is part of the problem. Even highly educated people are shocked to learn about this:

http://www.switched.com/2009/09/21/gaydar-experiment-uses-facebook-to-find-your-sexual-orientatio/

It is the responsibility of browser makers to provide for user security. We cannot stop people from giving their information away voluntarily; we can include ABP or similar software in all browsers, and thus remove the incentive to create invasive advertising.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Do Not Track is not a problem by lightBearer · 2012-09-20 11:50 · Score: 1

Those of us with extensible browsers can do better than DoNotTrack, which relies on the good nature of the site you visit.
Try getting a browser plugin to modify your headers and set it to filter or change your Referer header (I like to set mine to something snarky, in case the site I'm visiting is watching).
I've yet to have anything noticeable break as a result of this little hack.
Steps 2 and 3? Disable Cookies and Javascript. Of course, that can take quite a bit of fun and functionality out of HTTP services, but it's your privacy.

--
- No Bounce, No Play -
Re:Do Not Track is not a problem by postbigbang · 2012-09-20 11:54 · Score: 1

There is much truth in this. This is why I try and educate people.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Do Not Track is not a problem by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 12:18 · Score: 1

That's why ABP etc. should be included by default in browsers. If users actually want advertising, let them disable ad blockers and opt in.

--
Palm trees and 8

Subject Opt In by trout007 · 2012-09-20 11:11 · Score: 1

There may be a middle ground. I think most people against tracking don't want all of their private information collected. Things like looking up what that bump means or some other personal problem. Instead you could have a system like Pandora. A thumbs up and thumbs down. If you are on a website and an ad for hemorrhoid cream shows up you can click on the thumbs down so in the future it doesn't display ads like that.

I'm always looking up crap on Amazon I'd never buy because I'm curious to read the reviews. Then next time I'm on a website it throws an ad for it the browser. Most of the time if I actually want something from Amazon I ordered it.

This would be better for companies buying the ads because they aren't wasting money on people that have no intention on buying their product.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Subject Opt In by anubi · 2012-09-20 11:36 · Score: 1

I shop Amazon, eBay. and AliExpress ( China ).

All have a targeted ad system to show me products similar to ones I have placed on my wish list or have purchased.

Frankly, I like it.

I have been buying a lot of Arduino stuff, DC/DC converters, electronic components, connectors, lithium batteries, LED's, sensors, motors.

I am not interested in plastic flowers, dresses, Ipods, bridal accessories, diapers, insurance, or dinnerware. They have not been loading my screen with these unwanted items. The suggestions they have offered me have been welcome - they often offer an item I wasn't aware that it even existed.

Now, one place that I had just as soon not be tracked is which YouTube videos I will watch. I do not mind them tracking me for that session - but its quite annoying if they remember and suggest the same thing at a later time - when I am in another environment. For that reason, I do not want YouTube's cookies or registration. What goes on in the bedroom needs to stay there, and not be revealed at the office.

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

Case for Samzenpus by oldhack · 2012-09-20 11:11 · Score: 0

Anyone?

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.

Boohoo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:12 · Score: 0

If you can't sustain your business without being overly intrusive into people's lives by tracking their every movement and collecting lots of data then your business is a fail.

You don't need tracking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:13 · Score: 0

They could easily just make targeted ads based on the content of the page where it appears, rather than the user behavior - and most of the time it's prone to match whatever the user may be interested on (since they got there for some reason in the first place). So this whole thing about lack of tracking killing targeted advertising is pure BS.

Excellent by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-09-20 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

All this screaming means that we're on the right track.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Re:Excellent by kiriath · 2012-09-20 11:28 · Score: 1

I agree, lets keep rocking the boat till it tips over.
Perhaps bandwidth costs would go down if the internet wasn't flooded with advertisements.
Re:Excellent by Tom · 2012-09-20 20:55 · Score: 1

Second that. The sheer amount of whining and the sources it comes from is a surefire sign that this is the right approach.
And we need to keep it up. Add the next layer before they can recover from this blow.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Is the Internet just advertising? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:14 · Score: 0

There's plenty of people using the Internet without advertising, they have a product that their web site compliments.

hurrr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:15 · Score: 0

Eric Wheeler is the CEO of social ad network 33Across. Prior to 33Across, Eric was the CEO of Neo@Ogilvy and Executive Director of Ogilvy Interactive North America. Under his leadership, Ogilvy Interactiveâ(TM)s revenue grew five-fold from 2003-2007 working with leading brands including IBM, American Express, TD Ameritrade, Cisco and Yahoo!. Eric was co-founder and President/COO of Lot21, the award-winning digital agency that sold to Carat in 2002. Ericâ(TM)s 18-year career includes leadership positions at CNET, Young & Rubicam and Anderson Lembke in San Francisco. Eric holds a B.A. in Political Science and Philosophy from Boston University.

Nuke him from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

It'd only be the end of the commercial internet. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:16 · Score: 0

Non-profits will take it back. I don't see a problem with less online commercials, since I already pay for internet access.
Of course, companies selling products online won't just go away, but at least I won't see them unless I search for them.

Here's a guest column on Slashdot by Black+Parrot · 2012-09-20 11:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just another shill for the investor class, bemoaning the fact that there are still things that can't be bought and sold.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:This site is amazing. by ThatsMyNick · 2012-09-20 11:22 · Score: 0

You must be new here

stopped reading TFA at " ... anonymous" by logicassasin · 2012-09-20 11:23 · Score: 2

Are you logged into Google or any other search/email service right now? Then the data collected is most definitely not anonymous. Your search and surfing data is being collected and can be tied to you, or at least your online identity.

--
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.

Re:stopped reading TFA at " ... anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:36 · Score: 0

Are you logged into Google or any other search/email service right now? Then the data collected is most definitely not anonymous. Your search and surfing data is being collected and can be tied to you, or at least your online identity.
Data collected by Google, sure. However, if I'm logged into, say, Google, and some unrelated ad network tracks me, their data is "anonymous", because they have no way to connect it to any element of my online identity other than current IP and browser stats, and if I go to a different computer, it doesn't follow me.

Huh? by therealkevinkretz · 2012-09-20 11:25 · Score: 1

"the online industry's highly successful self-regulatory privacy practices"

Right, which is why all junk mails are opt-in and all unsubscribe requests are honored quickly.

"Online advertising has been one of the few unqualified success stories in our economy in recent years"

Yes, pop-up ads, and then the new pop-up ads designed to defeat my wanting to avoid them, have been an "unqualified success". Ditto for hovering crap, garishly flashing crap, and automatically starting embedded video and audio.

All that has really made the web a better place.

"they would have to employ subscription models where consumers pay a la carte"

better than suffering through all of the above.

"Eric is the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of 33Across."

Oooooooooh!

Ever hear of planning ads based on Demographics? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:27 · Score: 0

Instead of using bots to plan all your ads, I don't know, maybe find websites where people would actually be interested in what you're selling?

Oh, I know, stop the bullshit ads. You know the ads that make noise, expand as you mouse pass them and don't close until you click on them, ads that literally slow my computer to a crawl, nevermind pop-ups and the misleading or downright lying ones. I'm all for ads, but ads have gotten insanely complicated. All you need is an image, at the most an animated gif, and have it link to a url that notes where the ad came from.

THOSE ARE THE ADS I ACTUALLY CLICK ON. If an ad pisses me off, I not only won't click on it, I will be less likely to come back to that website in the future.

on a slightly related note, if I want to join your website, I will look for the sign-up/join/subscribe link. DON'T ASK ME WITH A POP-UP.

Three words: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:28 · Score: 0

Fuck. You. Too.

Spot on! by mothlos · 2012-09-20 11:30 · Score: 1

He is right, if we have Do Not Track legislation the economy is going to crash just like after recordable tapes destroyed the film industry and Napster eliminated all musicians.

But does it even work? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:34 · Score: 0

I don't really get targeted ads. I have a few websites I read daily/weekly and if I am searching for a product I open up a separate browser that is cleansed of all cookies, cache, etc. immediately after use. It takes negligible effort, and the ads I see...well let's look at two sites I frequent. Designer glasses (WTF?) Qantas airline (Haven't bought a plane ticket in years) Walmart (haven't been there in a decade) Elton John (bleh) real estate (Bwahahaha). Completely random bullcrap that I have zero interest in.

Why not... by SIR_Taco · 2012-09-20 11:35 · Score: 1

... do what television advertisers do and display ads based on the typical demographic based on the subject matter?

--
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.

slavery was big too. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:35 · Score: 0

Didn't make it right though.

AdBlockPlus is mandatory by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 11:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

ABP is mandatory; DNT is just a distracting waste of time predicated on bad ideas about what Internet advertising should be (and for that matter, what the Internet itself should be). We solved the invasive web advertisement problem long ago with ABP, just like we solved the email / Usenet spam problem with spam filtering.

The first paragraph of TFA should be enough to know how uninformed the writer's opinion is: he pushes the idea that anonymous data is being collected, despite all the work that has shown how that data can be de-anonymized (especially when several "anonymous" databases are combined).

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:54 · Score: 0

ABP and DNT are fine. Neither of them covers everything.
The question is, do you want the wild west or do you want a police state? Because, let's face it, we're no good at being somewhere in between.
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by guises · 2012-09-20 12:45 · Score: 1

NoScript is mandatory, to stop bad behavior, I also use Ghostery and FlashBlock. AdBlockPlus is detrimental though. I suppose if you're the sort of person who only goes to websites without advertising then you could justify the use of AdBlockPlus, since those sites pay for themselves by other means, but of course if those were the only sites that you were going to then you wouldn't need it...

The argument against spam goes like this: person A maintains an email server that person B uses to send spam. Person A shoulders the cost while person B receives the benefits, this is widely acknowledged as a bad thing. Visiting an ad supported website goes like this: person A maintains a web server that person B uses to retrieve content. Person A shoulders the cost but offsets this with advertising money, person B receives the (non-monetary) benefits. I'm hope I'm not being too subtle here.

The argument that the article is making is that money from advertising would not exist without tracking and this is false, advertising and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Advertising is very important to the web as it exists right now however, this includes sites like Slashdot. What I'm saying is, and I'm trying to put it politely, people as a whole should be aspiring to a higher level of ethics than douchebag spammers.
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:54 · Score: 0

to a higher level of ethics than douchebag spammers.
I'm going to have to disagree with your ethics. I see no problem at all with blocking content that is being sent to me.
I definitely disagree that blocking ads is akin to sending out millions of spam messages, too.
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 13:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

The argument against spam goes like this: person A maintains an email server that person B uses to send spam. Person A shoulders the cost while person B receives the benefits, this is widely acknowledged as a bad thing.
No, the argument against spam is that (in the absence of filtering) it overwhelms users' inboxes with unsolicited and unwanted messages and makes it exceedingly difficult for email / Usenet / SMS / etc. to be useful. Remember the days of writing your email address like this: email example com? That is not what the administrators or owners of mail servers were doing; that was what users did, to avoid spam in their inbox as long as possible.

Visiting an ad supported website goes like this: person A maintains a web server that person B uses to retrieve content. Person A shoulders the cost but offsets this with advertising money, person B receives the (non-monetary) benefits.
The other day, my mother was trying to read The New Yorker online, but a hover ad kept covering the article -- and there was no clear way to get rid of it. She now uses ABP, because otherwise, some websites would be unusable. That is exactly the same situation as email and Usenet spam, except that this time, it is so overwhelmingly profitable that the people doing it can appear to be "legitimate" (OK, I'll be fair: they usually advertise real products, which adds some amount of legitimacy).

You know whose resources are wasted with advertising on the web? Users', that's whose; CPU cycles, RAM, screen time and space, and so forth. What benefit are users getting? Targeted ads they did not want to begin with? When people need to buy things, they actually do benefit from advertising, but of a much different kind: classifieds like Craigslist, shopping search engines (what, you think that is not a form of advertising?), etc. It is not surprising that Amazon makes so much money in advertising -- not because they track users, but because when people need something, they use Amazon's search engine to find what they need.

Advertising is very important to the web as it exists right now
If that is true (and frankly, I think the web would be fine if everyone used ABP), then it is time to make a better system, perhaps one that is more distributed so that popular online publications are not so costly to operate.

What I'm saying is, and I'm trying to put it politely, people as a whole should be aspiring to a higher level of ethics than douchebag spammers.
I agree, but I am not greedy.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 13:02 · Score: 1

Remember the days of writing your email address like this: email example com?
That should read: email [at] example [dot] com

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by guises · 2012-09-20 13:53 · Score: 1

No, the argument against spam is that (in the absence of filtering) it overwhelms users' inboxes with unsolicited and unwanted messages and makes it exceedingly difficult for email / Usenet / SMS / etc. to be useful.
That's not right, that isn't why people are so dead-set against spam. Consider different methods of distributing targeted advertising, they can be lumped into two groups: spam, fax ads, and telemarketing calls to your cell phone in the one group, junk mail and telemarketing to a landline in the other group. The first group is banned or restricted by law, the second group is unrestricted (at least prior to the Do Not Call Registry). All of them waste a person's time, the difference between them is that the first group also wastes a person's money while the cost of the second group is covered by the advertiser.

Non-targeted advertising, ads published in a newspaper for example (I'm not sure if I'm using the phrase "targeted advertising" in a technically correct way, but it makes sense to me) are another thing altogether. Claiming that the New Yorker was spamming your mother when she chose to visit their site is unfair - she solicited that website from their servers. Yes, apparently the website was poorly constructed but that really doesn't really change anything.

Your criticism about ads wasting the users' computing resources is more on-target, that is certainly true, but again: you don't see those ads, and your resources are not wasted, if you don't go to that website. It's your choice.
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by green1 · 2012-09-20 16:20 · Score: 1

Actually we are very good at in between. We have the lawless wild wild west for the big players, and the police state for everyone else... or is this not quite what you had in mind?
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by Tom · 2012-09-20 21:08 · Score: 2

ABP is mandatory; DNT is just a distracting waste of time predicated on bad ideas about what Internet advertising should be (and for that matter, what the Internet itself should be). We solved the invasive web advertisement problem long ago with ABP, just like we solved the email / Usenet spam problem with spam filtering.
Is the portal to your parallel universe still open?
Spam still makes up the majority of E-Mail traffic. That you don't see it does not mean the problem has disappeared.
ABP has not made a dent in advertisement, because almost nobody uses it. Remember that we aren't the average Internet user. According to the Mozilla AddOns page, ABP has 14 mio. users. There are about 2.4 billion Internet users. So 0.6% of the Internet users use ABP. And I'm being generous there because most of those 14 mio. will also own a smartphone, iPad or other device where they do not have ABP installed.
DNT is non-mandatory, correct. But it can be made mandatory through legislation, and as a standard feature it is much easier for common people to deploy than ABP etc., and with a default on setting like MS is moving towards, it does something very important and very dangerous: It blows the plausible deniability away for the advertisement companies. That is what all the whining is about - with DNT in place and widely used, they can no longer claim to respect you. The mask will come off. And that could pave the way to more regulation, to the Internet equivalent of the do-not-call lists and such like.
Because right now, when ad company EvilAds claims that nobody minds their crap, you can not prove them wrong. When they deploy ads in a way that circumvents DNT, their argument falls apart.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by Skapare · 2012-09-21 01:18 · Score: 0

Spam still makes up the majority of E-Mail traffic. That you don't see it does not mean the problem has disappeared.
E-Mail is still around?

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-21 01:34 · Score: 1

Claiming that the New Yorker was spamming your mother when she chose to visit their site is unfair - she solicited that website from their servers
She solicited the article, and the advertising made that article impossible to read. It is not as though my mother visited that website expecting to have advertising covering up the text; the advertisement was not only unwanted, it was actually getting in the way. That is where the line is drawn between spam and generic advertising: when advertising is getting in your way, it is spam, regardless of how the advertising is delivered or why it is delivered.

Yes, apparently the website was poorly constructed but that really doesn't really change anything.
Another way to state that is that ABP actually fixes some of the problems with poorly constructed websites. After all, once ABP was installed, my mother was able to read The New Yorker's website without a problem.

Really though, the problem is not The New Yorker's website, which works perfectly fine; the problem is with the advertisers that are using The New Yorker's website as a vehicle to annoy^H^H^H^Hdeliver advertising to people.

Your criticism about ads wasting the users' computing resources is more on-target
Actually, I do not find that to be a particularly good argument, even though I made it. My only point there was that there is a tangible cost to users; however, that cost would exist regardless of the users' computing resources. The amount you pay for bandwidth and CPU time is probably pretty small compared to the value of the time you waste deciding what to do about spam/web advertising. The extra CPU time spent on spam filtering is insignificant compared to the time saved by not having to deal with spam. Time is a resource, and unwanted advertising wastes a person's time (note that there does exist wanted advertising; whenever a person visits Craigslist or uses Amazon's search engine, they are requesting advertisements).

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by NotSanguine · 2012-09-21 02:02 · Score: 1

...What I'm saying is, and I'm trying to put it politely, people as a whole should be aspiring to a higher level of ethics than douchebag spammers.
Yeah, well good luck with that.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:AdBlockPlus is mandatory by Qwavel · 2012-09-21 05:24 · Score: 1

Agreed - even if TNT worked, I wouldn't want it.
either I want AdBlock, or if I must view ads - and I guess it is how the sites I use make their money - then I prefer personalized ads rather then random ones.

Dear Eric: Hug a nut. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:38 · Score: 0

I mean that only in the kindest and gentlest sort of way, of course.

But seriously: Hug. A. Nut.

golden rule by slashmydots · 2012-09-20 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't forget the golden rule of business! It applies to advertising as well. It is: "If customers hate your product, fuck you, I hope you go out of business."
Sorry, web advertising. There's always Valpak, lol.

Re:golden rule by rgbrenner · 2012-09-20 14:17 · Score: 1

You're a customer of the advertising agency? or the sites displaying ads? really? How much did you pay them last year?
Their REAL customers... you know -- the companies that buy ads.. they love targeted ads because they are effective, and they love companies that implement them like Google.
So more like -- fuck you free website visitor.. because our customers (THE ADVERTISERS) love our product (AD SPACE)

None of the collected data is anonymous by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 11:43 · Score: 1

Take a supposedly "anonymous" database, and chances are you will be able to compute the identity of each person whose information is recorded in that database. This is even more true when you take several "anonymous" databases in combination, and it is a certainty when you combine "anonymous" data with not-anonymous data.

When someone defends invasive advertising by claiming that the data is anonymized, you know they are either uninformed or lying.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:None of the collected data is anonymous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:52 · Score: 0

Which is why it annoys me when telcos sell my "anonymized" location data. If they know where I live and work, they know who I am.

300 B isn't much by mosb1000 · 2012-09-20 11:46 · Score: 1

It's extremely unlikely this $300 B number represents all the targeted advertising companies and all their clients. There are very few companies that don't do some form of targeted advertising. If you were to add up the revenue of all the companies that use targeted advertising, it'd be tens of trillions of dollars.

Same story, different industry. by Score+Whore · 2012-09-20 11:50 · Score: 1

This is the same thing we heard from the credit bureaus when the fair credit reporting act was enacted. The same thing we heard from many industries with the EPA & clean water acts.

For most things there is an upside and a downside. If most of the country doesn't think your upside out weighs your downside, then sucks to be you.

(BTW and off topic) If Apple really wanted to stick it to Google, then what they'd need to do is push for legislation similar to the FCRA only applied to online tracking.

Re:Same story, different industry. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:14 · Score: 0

For most things there is an upside and a downside. If most of the country doesn't think your upside out weighs your downside, then sucks to be you.
I'm a libertarian and naturally err on the side of "no law" for issues where the link between the activity and significant unavoidable harm (physical or psychological) is weak. It almost always sucks to be me :(.
The fact that DoNotTrack is not a law is, overall, a good thing in my book. However, I would be in favour of funding a comprehensive study on the psychological effects of currently permitted advertising and, if sufficient evidence of significant "psychological damage" is found, would support toughening existing advertising regulations.

so to recap... by logicassasin · 2012-09-20 11:51 · Score: 1

you just said pretty much the same thing I said... Albeit with a bit more info, but the same basic principle.

--
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.

Want no tracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:51 · Score: 0

I was always advocating CHOICE as the only viable alternative. Want to be tracked, and have relevant ads displayed to you at the cost of your privacy? Say "yes". Do not want to be tracked and would rather have your Facebook page cluttered with ads for dating sites and Viagra distributors? Say "no". But as long as the advertising companies insist we say "yes" even if we don't want to, I will oppose them.

Here is a handy addon for Firefox:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/donottrackplus/

AND you'll be interested to know, that CNet rated this addon as "Outstanding" ;)

Other browsers should have something similar, go and have a look.

Such ignorance here... by Lord_Dweomer · 2012-09-20 11:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

It always amazes me how such an educated group of individuals as exists on /. always makes such irrational statements evertime an article like this comes around.

Full Disclosure: I've been in digital media for several years and am currently a fairly high-level individual on the more technical analytics/strategy side of things at a top digital media agency.

Now, despite my background, I want to preface this by saying that since I was very young, I've always been very paranoid about my privacy, and still remain paranoid to this day. I used to react to these sorts of things by spewing vitriol without knowing enough technical details to truly be qualified to comment. I would venture that is the case for the vast majority of people here. You know how to code, but I doubt you know how these systems actually work, what they actually collect, or how that data is actually used in the real world (not whatever scare story you are reading this week).

If you knew these things, you wouldn't be so disgusted by online advertising tracking practices. Do I dislike intrusive advertising? Yes. Do I think there is a lot of shitty advertising out there? The vast majority of it is. But just as there are bad coders who give the rest a negative reputation, the same is true for online advertising.

Beyond that, the end user of the tracking data does not give a shit about the special unique snowflake that you are. I know--I used to be one of those end users and now I managed a relatively large group of them. Do we have IP-level data? Technically, yes. Although to be honest, the only time I've actually looked at that was when trying to figure out a tracking bug with discrepancies between analytics platforms when I needed to compare timestamps.

Could the big bad evil government know what you are browsing? Yeah--but they could have done that anyway. Encrypt your traffic if you care.

The reality is, you guys are in the minority, and despite a lot of people being vocal about this, they are still in the minority. The reason this stuff keeps being made and actively pursued is BECAUSE IT WORKS AND PRODUCES BETTER RESULTS. Digital is all about the data, and I can tell you that retargeting, RTB inventory that uses audience data, etc. are all incredibly effective because they are SO well targeted that people click more, and more importantly, convert at higher rates. This means people find the ads more relevant, and are purchasing because of it. Period. End of story. They can think it is evil all they want--it still works and nobody forced them to click the fucking ad or make the purchase.

So get off your high horses and realize that this wouldn't exist if it weren't effective, and nobody is holding a gun to your head to click an ad. Don't like ads? Use ad block.

Now, with that rant out of the way, I will say that I am just as in favor of DoNotTrack measures as the rest of you. I think a user's data is theirs to own and do with as they please, and that if they don't want it collected, that is their right. I also think that sites have the right to withhold content from those who do not make their info available because the content is provided in exchange for it. Don't like it? Go elsewhere--maybe the impact will be such that the site will find another revenue source. But unless you are in the majority, that will likely not happen.

Bottom line...get educated about this topic if you want to have a real world discussion about it instead of just throwing out false statements and vague statements that anybody in the industry would laugh at because of how uneducated you sound. This is no different than when creationists attack science because they don't understand it and it scares them.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Such ignorance here... by TheRealMindChild · 2012-09-20 12:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

You know how to code, but I doubt you know how these systems actually work, what they actually collect, or how that data is actually used in the real world

I am one of those people who DO know how they work and what data they collect. I spent plenty of time engineering them and the subsequent delegations of production. They are just as evil as you can imagine, only more so. You may feel that you are a single point of consumer data, but your behavior changes and your habits along with them. They know this and see this, and if they can tell you are willing to spend more money, your new PC from XCompany is $39 more expensive.

Your post is misleading, and on purpose. It may be well articulated, but the Devil is in the details

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:Such ignorance here... by Alien+Being · 2012-09-20 12:45 · Score: 1

The point that you so glibly avoid is that most people don't want to be forced to engage in an active battle to protect their privacy.
Use the technology responsibly. If people want to sign up for your "services", they are free to do so. You're in the business of violating privacy. You're biased. Your opinion doesn't mean squat.
Creationists versus scientists? I don't know, did god specifically create leeches like you or did you evolve from some other low form of life?
Re:Such ignorance here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 13:14 · Score: 0

>If you only knew how it all works, you wouldn't be freaking out.
This might have been a good time to tell us how it works, instead of "yeah, well we do have all sorts of IP level data on you, but trust us, this data is making us a lot of money, so it should be really rather clear to you all that your uninformed arguments are invalid"
Re:Such ignorance here... by TCM · 2012-09-20 14:19 · Score: 1

I want to preface this by saying that since I was very young, I've always been very paranoid about my privacy, and still remain paranoid to this day. I used to react to these sorts of things by spewing vitriol without knowing enough technical details to truly be qualified to comment. I would venture that is the case for the vast majority of people here.
So you were "one of us" but very young. But now you've matured and see the "real" story. Rrrright.

The reality is, you guys are in the minority, and despite a lot of people being vocal about this, they are still in the minority.
Perfect. Why not mind your own business then? Why come here and argue with a minority?

Now, with that rant out of the way, I will say that I am just as in favor of DoNotTrack measures as the rest of you.
Sure, when it can be ignored server-wise and noone would know.

I also think that sites have the right to withhold content from those who do not make their info available because the content is provided in exchange for it. Don't like it? Go elsewhere
Perfect. Why aren't they withholding it, then? You do your thing and I prevent you from doing your thing on MY hardware. Deal?

Bottom line...get educated about this topic if you want to have a real world discussion about it instead of just throwing out false statements and vague statements that anybody in the industry would laugh at because of how uneducated you sound. This is no different than when creationists attack science because they don't understand it and it scares them.
Another sissy rant. "Boohoo, you're just uneducated fools." I am educated about it. Marketing weasels are the lowest form of life right next to lawyers and can't be trusted.
And the science argument, wonderful. Know what? Advertising scum is on the same level as creationists - trying to fuck with other people's minds.
So there.

--
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Re:Such ignorance here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:24 · Score: 0

Bottom line...get educated about this topic if you want to have a real world discussion about it instead of just throwing out false statements and vague statements that anybody in the industry would laugh at because of how uneducated you sound.
Well if the other people "in the industry" are as big of condescending assholes as you the best thing that can be happen is you all get laid off after your industry crashes and burns. Fuck you and the rest of the parasites like you.
Re:Such ignorance here... by Crypto+Cavedweller · 2012-09-20 14:25 · Score: 0

"BECAUSE IT WORKS AND PRODUCES BETTER RESULTS." For people selling advertising. "So get off your high horses and realize that this wouldn't exist if it weren't effective," For people selling advertising. This is Marketspeak. I'll never forget our director of Marketing telling me once "There is no such thing as spam." And from his perspective, there isn't. From mine, there damn well is and I'll squash it every chance I get. You don't have a right to make money from my data, and I have every right to keep as much of it from you as possible.
Re:Such ignorance here... by codepigeon · 2012-09-20 16:30 · Score: 1

Says the man with a fucking ad in his sig.
Re:Such ignorance here... by manaway · 2012-09-21 08:45 · Score: 1

It always amazes me how such an educated group of individuals as exists on /. always makes such irrational statements evertime an article like this comes around. Full Disclosure: I've been in digital media for several years and am currently a fairly high-level individual on the more technical analytics/strategy side of things at a top digital media agency.
Irrational? Let's peer into the self-proclaimed mind of a high level advertiser, and see who's irrational. We'll ignore the pandering comment about how 2 million or so Slashdot members are "educated," since demonstrating otherwise would be a chore for no one.

Now, despite my background, I want to preface this by saying that since I was very young, I've always been very paranoid about my privacy, and still remain paranoid to this day.
By "paranoid" let's presume you mean careful and cautious, which is not the psychological definition but is more or less the way the term is used around here.

I used to react to these sorts of things by spewing vitriol without knowing enough technical details to truly be qualified to comment. I would venture that is the case for the vast majority of people here.
Here you venture into categorizing individuals and belittling the layperson. The world is filled with specialties, and there are forums where topics come up that are discussed by amateurs and experts alike. This is one of those places. Richard Feynman used to read all the letters amateur physicists would send him, just in case someone noticed something he didn't. You might suggest Feynman was the only one "truly qualified" to comment, but he thought otherwise.

You know how to code, but I doubt you know how these systems actually work, what they actually collect, or how that data is actually used in the real world (not whatever scare story you are reading this week). If you knew these things, you wouldn't be so disgusted by online advertising tracking practices.
Since advertising agencies, as a policy, do not make public all the data they collect from all sources, who all that data is sold to, and what all is done with that data, then a typical person is forced to make conjectures. Assessments based on knowledge of data that could be collected, how databases can be used, a few facts in various articles (e.g. ChoicePoint now LexisNexis), books (e.g. Edward Bernays), what friends and colleagues say, personal experience, and extrapolation.

Do I dislike intrusive advertising? Yes.
Cool, nearly everyone probably agrees with this.

Do I think there is a lot of shitty advertising out there? The vast majority of it is. But just as there are bad coders who give the rest a negative reputation, the same is true for online advertising.
Wait, you said earlier that if we knew more we wouldn't be disgusted, but now as an insider you're saying that the "vast majority" is "shitty advertising." This is contradictory, unless you think shitty advertising isn't disgusting. Then you go on to say the majority of "shitty" advertisers give the rest a "negative reputation." Yes, this is in fact how the whole "majority" notion works. Much like the joke where 99.9% of politicians give the others a bad name, get it? The technical term for these self-contradictions is cognitive dissonance; and if people say you're full of shit, this is part of the reason why.
Bottom line, the rest of your post is filled with similar drivel, which deserves to be further critiqued but perhaps this is already enough to evaluate properly.

The problem with targeted ads. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 11:53 · Score: 0

The problem is that I use the web for many different reasons at different times. Work, entertainment, study, porn.

I don't want adverts for work subjects like ISA card extenders for maintenance of industrial ball bearing polishing machines when I want entertainment. And certainly not when I'm looking at porn.

The Internet will be just fine by dkh · 2012-09-20 11:58 · Score: 1

The ad industry has been around for a long time. It survived just fine with out knowing all kinds of info about everyone that happened to access a venue they occupied. They need to return to a methodology where they actually select the proper place to run their ads and pay for a period of exposure. The whole pay per impression/click concept is a large part of what has led us to where we are today. The industry has over reached what most people find as acceptable behavior and its past time for a correction. Sadly the DNT efforts aren't going to be successful unless there are some teeth somewhere.

Someone should inform this d-bag by forgottenusername · 2012-09-20 11:59 · Score: 1

We had the internet long before people like him were trying to massively profit by any means necessary, no matter how low.

if he is right by binarstu · 2012-09-20 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just imagine what would happen if "do not track" were incredibly successful, and as this guy predicts, the "bottom drops out" of the online advertising industry, forcing "free" sites like Facebook to turn to subscription-based models to pay for themselves.

We would find out really quickly what people actually care about on the Web. My guess is that for many advertising-supported sites, Facebook included, we'd see that user loyalty is a mile wide and an inch deep. Most current users would be unwilling to have to pay to continue using the service, in my opinion. Most people don't care about paying for a service with their privacy, but make even a small dent in their wallet, and they will suddenly care very much.

Re:if he is right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:05 · Score: 1

Exactly. Most of these business would collapse because they are being propped up by phony eyeball numbers. If they had sustainable business models they wouldn't be so worried about DNT.
Re:if he is right by MrL0G1C · 2012-09-20 20:30 · Score: 1

Your comment is false.
Do not track != Do not advertise
Newspapers, TV, Billboards etc all survive happily without stalking the public.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

"EXACTAMUNDO" & how to BURN them back by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:10 · Score: 0

Is right here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406041 AND IT DIDN'T GET ITS BALLS CUT OFF like AdBlock Plus has by being "bought out" & setup by default to burn you just like Apache is doing with DNT!

(And, it NEVER will... nor will the sources of its data either!)

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

* KEEP THAT IN MIND, just like how Apache is "circumventing" the DNT policy that is "voluntary":

---

Apache Patch To Override IE 10's Do Not Track Setting:

http://apache.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/0053235/apache-patch-to-override-ie-10s-do-not-track-setting

---

* It's "ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS" folks..., especially to advertisers/marketers!

Hence, how they even "GOT TO" the Apache folks I wager as well in the 1st place - money (like it or not, it's most likely, reality!).

(What a bunch of BULLSHIT "DNT" is turning out to be - anyone with 1/2 a BRAIN realizes marketers won't obey OR allow it, as their livelyhoods depend on ads!)

APK

P.S.=> What I personally LOVE though? The fact "marketers" are CRYING about it now... just like Arstechnica did after pulling bullshit that burned their AdBlock using crowd (but not hosts files, via "webbugs" usage) ->

Re:Nobody has a right to shove their own beliefs by TaoPhoenix · 2012-09-20 12:10 · Score: 1

Sure, we should nationally publish the public schedule of one Mr. Eric Wheeler, get a little money from a mysterious donor to "Make It Okay", then we should flood him every waking moment of his life with about 7 people per minute offering him stuff. 'Oh, I'm sorry, you said you liked advertising. I'm sorry if you think that doesn't apply to you." But no, it's always built in with little cute loopholes to the Powers That Be, like an I Am An Executive setting.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Right to exist? by devphaeton · 2012-09-20 12:17 · Score: 2

He speaks of compromising a $300 billion industry

Just because there is some 'industry' where some arbitrarily large amount of money is exchanged, it doesn't mean it has any right to exist at all.

This is different, but about as justifiable as the "too big to fail" arguments of yore.

--

do() || do_not(); // try();

Re:Right to exist? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:17 · Score: 0

I was thinking exactly the same thing. If the money generated by any given industry is enough reason to justify protecting it, why aren't the drug trade and protitution legal?

WWJS by Ryanrule · 2012-09-20 12:18 · Score: 1

He would call down the wrath of god on EVERY ad company.

Save us jebus

Addendum on arstechnica "WebBug" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:19 · Score: 0

"P.S.=> What I personally LOVE though? The fact "marketers" are CRYING about it now... just like Arstechnica did after pulling bullshit that burned their AdBlock using crowd (but not hosts files, via "webbugs" usage) ->" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, @08:10PM (#41406393)

Quoting that from myself, in a hurry here, but had to make SURE that was covered too... here goes:

PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES: per my prior post I am replying to noting it @ its termination -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406393

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

---

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words!

(Since Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example)).

APK

P.S.=> However/Again - It's ALL about the BENJAMINS folks...

... apk

Re:Addendum on arstechnica "WebBug" by ColdWetDog · 2012-09-20 12:33 · Score: 1

Off your meds again, I see....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Addendum on arstechnica "WebBug" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 16:04 · Score: 0

I'd be quite fine with their content disappearing. So long suckers....

This has happened before. This will happen again. by MrLizard · 2012-09-20 12:35 · Score: 1

Yes, because the radio, television, magazine, and newspaper industries were unable to survive without targeted advertising...

(Yes, many of those are dying now, but it's not because targeted advertising is infinitely better in every way. Programs that block/hide ads are more likely to be a threat to ad revenue than limiting targeting. Good old fashioned "People on a site about cats probably will respond to ads for cat food" logic ought to be good enough to sustain the sites. And, if there isn't a way to generate sufficient content on ad revenue, then, people will begin to pay for the content they like, or they will do without it, or the entire system will evolve in ways not easy to predict. As another person mentioned, there is no "right" to any business model, just as there is no "right" to have access to content for free. Solutions will evolve, and the first people to find them ones that work will get very rich.)

Yet another advert exec crying Wolf by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 12:42 · Score: 1

The advertising industry has a long and uniformly failed history of crying Wolf at every new technology. Anything that even hints at a modicum of consumer control over their environment will End the World as We Know It!! (R) (TM) (C).

Let us count the ways:

1). VCR's were going to cripple advertisers, end free TV, hurt consumers and kneecap media companies;
2). PVR's were going to cripple advertisers, end free TV, hurt consumers and kneecap media companies;
3). AdBlock was going to cripple advertisers, end free Internet sites, hurt consumers and kneecap media companies;
4). Do Not Call was going to cripple advertisers, end free, er, newspaper solicitations (??), hurt consumers and kneecap media companies;
5). Now, Do Not Track is going to cripple advertisers, end free Internet sites, hurt consumers and kneecap media companies.

And it's all unAmerican, undemocratic, and anti-capitalist to boot.

Starting to see a pattern here?

Fuck him by Ryanrule · 2012-09-20 12:42 · Score: 1

Fucm this asshole, fuck his wife, fuck his children, fuck his grandchildren.

Gloves are off, and will cost several billion to put back on. Deal with it, or leave.

Netflix and Amazon don't need this. by Animats · 2012-09-20 12:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Netflix and Amazon don't need tracking of casual browsers, because they have real customers. They have, legitimately, information about what you knowingly bought from them. Businesses that have real sites that sell real stuff don't really need to track browsers, just customers. Even Facebook doesn't need tracking of casual browsers, since, while they're intrusive, you clearly sign up with and log into Facebook. Google doesn't really need personalization; they were profitable just putting up ads that were relevant to the current search.

So, really, it's the junk sites that need this. Those with Google AdSense junk ads. Most entertainment sites. Slashdot. Crap like that. Getting rid of tracking would hurt them. We might lose some of them. No big loss.

Re:Netflix and Amazon don't need this. by Xacid · 2012-09-20 22:55 · Score: 1

And don't forget how we ever survived maybe 20ish years ago before Ads were on every.fucking.thing. You know like...people putting their own money up to host their stuff, accepted donations, built their own servers, etc etc. The Internet aint going nowhere.
Re:Netflix and Amazon don't need this. by drinkypoo · 2012-09-21 00:16 · Score: 1

Netflix and Amazon don't need tracking of casual browsers, because they have real customers.
Netflix and Amazon don't need tracking of casual browsers, because they have accounts that people sign into. No one without an account is worth tracking. Even people who don't buy anything, but just create an amazon account to have access to APIs or to make wish lists provide Amazon with usable data, though; it's not just customers.

So, really, it's the junk sites that need this. Those with Google AdSense junk ads. Most entertainment sites. Slashdot. Crap like that.
Most relevantly, it stops third-party tracking, or at least, seeks to. If someone needs to track me they will offer me some incentive to create an account, and then I will have had to agree to be tracked, and they will track me. What I find offensive is being tracked by google when I visit J. Random Site. Granted, this is easy enough to prevent by blocking scripts and cookies, but I shouldn't have to.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

User Specified by englishknnigits · 2012-09-20 13:05 · Score: 1

Have they not considered a user specified, targeted add strategy? As compensation to a company for providing a service/website, have users specify at least a few categories of products they might be be interested. They will only be shown ads from those categories. That makes ads more pertinent to the user, which is a good thing for the user, and makes an advertisers ads more effective, which is a good thing for advertisers. The only downside is that you have to tell companies what broad interests you have but I don't think that is a very high price to pay for the otherwise "free" content they provide. It doesn't even have to be personally identifiable or tracked, they just read a cookie of what you tell them you'd like to see when you visit the site.

Someone please tell me why this isn't a win/win? The only companies I can see really loosing out are the companies that gather and sell data to the advertisers.

Brilliant Move by MS by Mr.+Underbridge · 2012-09-20 13:05 · Score: 1

Microsoft intends to turn DNT on by default for IE 10, and even if you don't go with Windows 8 you might get some updates for Win7, if not actually IE 10, that set DNT accordingly. Now a huge browser market, including most people people who don't know what DNT is, nor do they care, will have it disabled by default. This pits Microsoft against Google in a huge way.

Sort of relates to this internal Microsoft memo that was leaked.

Halloween Document XII.
Recorded by //REDACTED//, as dictated by Steve Ballmer, //REDACTED//, and //REDACTED//.
10/18/2011
Microsoft Engineer So there's this Do Not Track feature that will really help consumers. It prevents advertisers from following their every move online. It will be great for privacy. Can I have a $100,000 research budget for it?
Steve Ballmer Fuck that.
Corporate weasel whispers into Ballmer's ear
Steve Ballmer Oh, you mean this will completely fuck Google and Facebook? Why didn't you say so? You have your budget for $100,000,000
Engineer Actually, I only need...
Engineer's Manager That will be great Mr. Ballmer, thank you.

Cheers,

Eric

Re:Brilliant Move by MS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 15:45 · Score: 0

Why would Microsoft want to fuck over Facebook when they invested in it?
Re:Brilliant Move by MS by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-21 00:54 · Score: 1

I don't think they did it to fuck over Google and Facebook, I think they did it to completely destroy the DNT initiative by breaking the rules and making it meaningless.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:AdBlock is "crippled" by default by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 13:17 · Score: 0

Bitch please.

The creator of ABP is an Internet Hero. You are an Internet Troll.

Fuck off.

Paying the writers by tepples · 2012-09-20 13:25 · Score: 1

it is time to make a better system, perhaps one that is more distributed so that popular online publications are not so costly to operate.

Various companies offer cloud delivery networks to make delivery more distributed. But not all the costs of running a web site are related to delivery (that is, bandwidth). Some are related to creating the works displayed on the site. How do you recommend making it less costly to pay a site's writers without discouraging them from becoming the site's writers in the first place?

Re:Paying the writers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 20:40 · Score: 0

Personally, I donate to or buy merchandise from my favorite bloggers and web comic artists. It seems to be a sub-optimal way to pay for content, but there should be a revenue stream for people putting free content on the internet without having to rely on ads. Flattr was one attempt at making that work better that I never used but saw a bunch of free software related bloggers using a while ago but not recently.
Re:Paying the writers by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-21 01:12 · Score: 1

Various companies offer cloud delivery networks to make delivery more distributed. But not all the costs of running a web site are related to delivery (that is, bandwidth). Some are related to creating the works displayed on the site. How do you recommend making it less costly to pay a site's writers without discouraging them from becoming the site's writers in the first place?
The same way scientific journals do it, perhaps (i.e. everything is written, edited, and reviewed by volunteers). There are also plenty of places where the writing is done by the users themselves (like Slashdot), and those users are not demanding payment.

Really though, I am not creative enough to develop an exhaustive list of ways that online publications could pay writers or otherwise get people to write for them without invasive advertising. Maybe there is some mind-blowing model that can completely replace advertising without turning the web into a maze of paywalls, and none of us can imagine what it is.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Paying the writers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:15 · Score: 0

you need to monetize the scarce good, that is the writers time,
not the non-scarce good, that is the digital good.
and preferably you do so in advance (where impossible you'll essentially have to rely on your users goodwill)
Re:Paying the writers by tepples · 2012-09-21 01:23 · Score: 1

you need to monetize the scarce good, that is the writers time
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, to my knowledge, nobody has been able to come up with best practices for doing this on a web site intended for the general public.

Disable Ads checkbox on the homepage by tepples · 2012-09-20 13:30 · Score: 1

I like it how whenever web advertising topic comes up none of those who claim "I'd rather pay, but see no ads!" (usually continued with "And if it withers and dies, it probably wasn't worth visiting anyways!") have a /. subscription.

Established users of Slashdot who have maintained Excellent karma for a period of time get their ads disabled anyway. I don't know how long that'll last under Dice though.

Re:Disable Ads checkbox on the homepage by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:04 · Score: 0

AFAIK, it's limited to some number of ads hidden. Can't find it in FAQ, but I do notice ads reappearing even though my karma doesn't drop (I'm usually posting with anonymous checkbox, after all).
Anyways, I'd find subscriber's words to this effect much more credible. "Disable ads" for excellent karma is kind of relegating your ads - the reasoning for that checkbox is, probably, "more good content -> more visitors -> more ad views, so we don't mind you not seeing them if you bring others in".

Enjoy your paywalls by tepples · 2012-09-20 13:34 · Score: 1

That's why ABP etc. should be included by default in browsers.

If that were to become the case, more sites would say "turn off ABP or enter your credit card number".

Re:Enjoy your paywalls by betterunixthanunix · 2012-09-20 14:28 · Score: 1

No they would not; they would host ads in a way that is more difficult for ABP to detect, the most obvious being serving the ads from their own web servers. Telling users to do something technical is a guaranteed way to get most them to lose interest in your site, and unlike the advertisers, a website that only gets 1% of its users to stick around is a website that will ultimately fail.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Enjoy your paywalls by Desler · 2012-09-20 16:02 · Score: 1

Great. If paying meant no data collection, no tracking and no ads, I'm fine with that. But since they'll still want to do all that, they can eat it.
Re:Enjoy your paywalls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 23:34 · Score: 0

Then those sites will stop being used, and die.
No one site is irreplaceable on the intrawebs. There's alternatives for everything.

compromising a $300 billion industry by manu0601 · 2012-09-20 13:39 · Score: 1

There are many illegal activities that move a lot of money. This is not a reason why we would not want to fight them.

Off YOUR shock-therapy I see! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 13:46 · Score: 0

"Off your meds again, I see...." - by ColdWetDog (752185) a TROLLING PUSSY on Thursday September 20, @08:33PM (#41406547) Homepage

Is that the "best you've got", off-topic trolling & ILLOGICAL failing ad hominem attack attempts via transparent insinuations??

* Then, LMAO @ U!

APK

P.S.=> You're nothing but a punk... apk

Re:Off YOUR shock-therapy I see! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 15:53 · Score: 0

the internet: enabling nitwits to annoy an insanely large audience since... whenever the fuck you got your first aol cd.

If targeted ads were accurate, I would like them by MpVpRb · 2012-09-20 13:54 · Score: 1

If an advertiser could know when I was in the market for a product or service, I would welcome their ads, if they were limited to the product or service I was researching

The problem with today's targeted ads is that they are stupid

Example: I fly RC helicopters, serious, high-end RC helicopters. The stupid robots see this, and send me ads for cheap, toy helicopters

I would welcome targeted advertising if it was even close to the things I am interested in

Companies do not have "hearts". by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:06 · Score: 0

>> strike fear into the hearts of every company

Companies do not have hearts.

Tell you what by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:11 · Score: 0

"Bitch please. The creator of ABP is an Internet Hero. You are an Internet Troll. Fuck off." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, @09:17PM (#41406765)

Some "hero" (he sold out), and per my subject-line above?

The DAY HE (or you even better yet) has done MORE, BETTER, & most importantly, EARLIER than I have in this field (while you BOTH WERE IN DIAPERS I'd wager)? per this only PARTIAL list of my favorites below??

That is the day you can talk that way to me, you little anonymous coward trolling punk!

APK

P.S.=> Here's that list:

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873

----

Again - You show me that YOU, or even ABP's creator, have done MORE, BETTER, & most importantly, EARLIER than I have in the art & science of computing, from that TINY PARTIAL LIST OF MY FAVORITES ONLY?

Then, you can speak to ME that way... otherwise? You're NOTHING MORE THAN A LITTLE PUNK & COWARD TALKING "BIG" ONLINE, nothing more

... apk

Re:AdBlock is "crippled" by default by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:18 · Score: 0

He told truths about AdBlock with proof from /. nd got a mod down? Bullshit.

Yet Somehow ... by Crypto+Cavedweller · 2012-09-20 14:21 · Score: 0

I notice that television advertising made piles of cash for a long time without being able to track if I was watching or not.

Trolls're runnin' outta modpoints APK by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 14:24 · Score: 0

Since they took it down from +1, to 0, now it's +0 INFORMATIVE. They'll do anything to down moderate you I've noticed and mostly when you post the material you did.

No more television by chrismcb · 2012-09-20 14:32 · Score: 2

He is probably correct. The lack of targeted marketed has spelled the end of television.

Dont forget the DRUG industry by stanlyb · 2012-09-20 15:17 · Score: 1

They are worth billions, if not trillions of dollars. We need to protect their business model......

opt-out by drew30319 · 2012-09-20 16:03 · Score: 2

The author is CEO of 33across.com. And . . . here's their opt-out link: http://optout.33across.com/api/optout/

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.

Re:If targeted ads were accurate, I would like the by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 16:50 · Score: 0

Exactly my thoughts on the the whole mess! Example: Facebook. I got a bunch of ads for a candidate in a county race. Two problems: 1) I don't vote. (not that Facebook would know that,) but 2) I DON'T LIVE IN THAT COUNTY! I couldn't vote for them if I wanted to.

I wouldn't mind as much if they were anywhere near right.

Re: Ads by TaoPhoenix · 2012-09-20 16:53 · Score: 1

I've daydreamed about an Opt-In Ads page for years now, but I'm a humanities type, not a dev, so I can't make it happen.

It's like this: You set up a site, you declare "I want to see an ad", and then you pick your ad you want to see. Make the ad studios work a little for once.

Top 100 best ads ever: Fed Ex, 1981, John Moschitta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31yxkSIIn9A

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Targeted advertisement in dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 19:04 · Score: 0

Target advertisement is a pretty dumb idea the way it is executed now.

Let me give you a story about how dumb it really is, from when I wasn't actively blocking tracking and advertisement:
1. I used to play EVE Online, so on pretty much every website I went to it showed this advertisement of this great game called EVE Online.
2. When I stopped playing EVE Online, they started to show random MMO advertisement (since I was looking playing a lot of random MMOs).

I have a feeling that targeted advertisement that shows the exact same product you have already bought is a bit dumb.

"campaign contributions"... by Herve5 · 2012-09-20 19:21 · Score: 5, Informative

"campaign" I don't know, but money I do.
I'm in my 50s. I have sons that are young engineers, and as such I regularly meet a range of their young colleagues: somehow I have a view of the 'young engineer' population here in Europe.

If one thing is clear within this 20~30 people group, it's that the richest of them BY FAR are the ones that are employed by an ad-targeting firm.
And the firm itself is HUGELY profitable, recruiting as much as they can, etc.

So, definitely there is money running, pouring, flooding even, presently in the ad-targeting business.

--
Herve S.

parasites by Tom · 2012-09-20 20:45 · Score: 1

So what?

The drug business is larger than this and we fight it.
Human trafficking and slavery are huge markets, but we don't support them.
Heck, by common propaganda, child porn is apparently a gigantic international market, yet I don't see anyone saying it needs to be saved.

Just because it's a huge market does not mean it has a right to exist.

We as a society need to decide if we want something, and to which extend.

We want a certain amount of drugs - the legal ones - and we don't want others.
We do not want to disallow any business that moves people from A to B for a fee - tourism is quite welcome in most places - but we don't want certain kinds.
Like it or not, as a society we have decided that certain kinds of porn are ok, while others are not.

Same for advertisement. Some is fine and some fucking isn't, get that into your head you fucking parasites.

We have added a technical means to say "do not track me, please". If lots and lots of people prefer it this way, the correct answer is not to circumvent or weaken it. In fact, I personally think that if the industry does not start respecting DNT right now, and stops whining about it, then it should become the law. That is how we beat assholes and egoists back into line in this society.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Targeted ads are unnecessary if banned. by Requiem18th · 2012-09-20 21:31 · Score: 1

Targeted ads are only seen as important because they charge extra for them compared to non-targeted ads. If only one company has targeted ads they win. If no body has targeted ads, non-targeted ads will raise in price and the cost of tracking users goes away. Everybody wins.

You don't need targeted ads to advertise, and, more relevant to the bottom line of advertising companies, you don't need to targeted ads to earn money from advertisement.

--
But... the future refused to change.

ABP is your friend by David+Gerard · 2012-09-20 21:59 · Score: 1

This is the case for installing AdBlock Plus.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk

Ad bloat by Knightman · 2012-09-20 23:23 · Score: 1

My biggest gripe with ads except that they are intrusive is the technology used to deliver the ads to your browser. The ad-servers are usually extremely slow to serve up the ads and they use a multitude of client side javascripts to do "nifty things" in your browser that makes it slow to a crawl while consuming 100% cpu. On top of that you they also load up the pages with all kind of tracking pixels, cookies whatever that makes your web-experience even slower.

--
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.

Pig Brother is Watching You by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-09-20 23:28 · Score: 1

The purpose of targeted advertising isn't to sell you something, it is to stop you seeing alternatives.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz

Why opt out? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-09-21 00:29 · Score: 1

Black hole the domains on the EasyList filter from AdBlockPlus at the router. A script / regex will strip out everything which doesn't fit a domain.TLD format.

If requests to the advertising site don't resolve, how can they track you?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

What we need is reasonable advertising by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-21 00:59 · Score: 1

What I allow on my browser, and what the Internet needs to run on, is reasonable advertising. This consists of simple images or text viewed on a webpage and views tracked only by plain HTTP requests. No active content, no cookies/flash cookies/HTML5 storage, no browser profiling, targeted only by the site it's presented on. But as with TV the advertising has run amok because there is no limit to how much money these people "need." Once again the core problem is greed.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Paywalled site with paywalled competitors by tepples · 2012-09-21 01:04 · Score: 1

[Web sites that erect paywalls or disable ABP walls] will stop being used, and die.

Not if several sites do this at the same time, such as all sites that syndicate Associated Press feeds. It has already happened with scholarly journals in areas of science that have chosen not to adopt an open access policy.

That felt icky by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:09 · Score: 0

The whole article comes off like a shark logically explaining in detail why it needs to eat you in order to survive.

"Really, there's no other alternative. It's the only way. Now if you'd be a good chap and stop thrashing about so, this whole business would go over far more neatly for me."

I'm Sure They'll Figure It Out by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:29 · Score: 0

Somehow businesses managed to execute successful ad campaigns before the web without needing the track their customers. I'm sure they'll figure a way around this little problem, too.

Re:AdBlock is "crippled" by default by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:50 · Score: 0

Oh my! APK, you are so hot! I had an orgasm reading your post. I especially love it when you bold the text. It makes me tingle all over.

Can I have a pair of your used underwear to masturbate with? Pretty please?

Re:AdBlock is "crippled" by default by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 01:59 · Score: 0

He blathered on for 3000 words or so of the same information over and over and over again. And the stuff about ABP isn't really accurate. ABP let's you choose from no blocking (you add the blocks you want), the new "good" ads feature, and block everything. It's just a couple of radio buttons in the configuration. And nothing of value was lost.

You must be new here or one of apk's sock puppets. In case it's the former, he goes on about host files and posts these incredibly long and useless (not to mention misleading) screeds where he links to every other time he's ever posted the same thing every couple of days. Oh, and he's been doing it for *years*

I don't think he's a troll. He doesn't have the cycles to be a troll. Managing his 500MB hosts file takes up all of his time.

Re:Agreed, 110% (& how to beat them + Apache) by tilante · 2012-09-21 02:01 · Score: 1

Losing my mods here to explain:

He's being downmodded because the poster in question has been pushing his "you can fix everything with hosts files!" solution on Slashdot with spammy posts for a long, long time. Yes, this time, he's actually on-topic -- but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

While his solution works reasonably well, it's so obvious that anyone with even a bit of network knowledge who wants to do it is pretty much already doing it. But for some reason known only to him, this guy is on a holy crusade to get people to stop using ad-blockers and instead to use hosts files. Many people in the past have already pointed out to him that using hosts files for this has disadvantages as well, and have asked him to stop repetitively posting this, but he won't listen.

So, the Boy Who Cried Wolf is being modded down for crying "Wolf!", even though there's a wolf in the area this time, because people know that going "Yes, you're right this time! Thank you!" would only encourage him to cry "Wolf!" more often.

An application of... "ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:02 · Score: 0

".dc loa tsrif ruoy tog uoy kcuf eht revenehw ...ecnis ecneidua egral ylenasni na yonna ot stiwtin gnilbane :tenretni eht" - by Anonymous Coward ANOTHER "ne'er-do-well" /. OFF-TOPIC TROLL oon Thursday September 20, @11:53PM (#41407525)

"???"

Uhm... Could we get a translation of that off-topic "troll-speak/trolllanguage" of yours, please?

---

* And, you're an off-topic troll - no questions asked...SEE MY SUBJECT LINE ABOVE!

APK

P.S.=> Yes, it must have just have been another off-topic done nothing of significance with his life troll spewing his off-topic b.s. again & not contributing to the ongoing conversations. Oh well - No biggie!

("ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy", for trolls - Courtesy of this code by "yours truly" in less than 1 second flat):

---

#TrollTalkComReversePsychologyKiller.py (Ver #2 by APK)

def reverse(s):
try:
trollstring = ""
for apksays in s:
trollstring = apksays + trollstring
except:
print("error/abend in reverse function")
return trollstring

s = ""
print reverse(s)

try:
s = "Insert whatever 'trollspeak/trolllanguage' gibberish occurs here..."
s = reverse(s)
print(s)
except Exception as e:
print(e)

---

... apk

WoW... they sure blew a lot of modpoints! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:10 · Score: 0

Taking my post from +1 INFORMATIVE to 0 REDUNDANT. See the bottom of my last post -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406041 and KNOW who the parties are that did the bogus unjustifiable downmod. It's fairly obvious it's 1 of those 3 kinds of people...

* Their FAVORITE COLOR? It just MUST be "transparent"!

(Since I can SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM, & their motivations, easily...)

APK

P.S.=> I challenge ANY of those that did the downmodding of my post to disprove its enumerated points on the benefits custom hosts files give end users of them here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406041

AND

To justify their "redundant" downmod (since THIS WAS THE ONLY PLACE I POSTED THAT, lol...)

... apk

In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:11 · Score: 0

...the Beef Cattle Producers Advisory Committee reports that people don't eat enough beef. Shocking.

To whoever downmodded my post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:15 · Score: 0

I challenge you to disprove the 15 points that I listed that give hosts users better online speed/bandwidth, better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", better efficiency than browser addons like AdBlock (which is CRIPPLED by default since it was "bought out") as well as better coverage (since hosts cover ANY webbound app, AdBlock doesn't), better reliability (vs. downed or poisoned DNS servers), + even better 'anonymity' to an extent (vs. DNS request logs) & ways to get speed back that other methods cannot do (and more)...

* Good Luck Trolls - you'll NEED it (and facts, which you cannot come up with vs. my points... and you know it!)

APK

P.S.=> Now, I just KNOW nobody can do that... lol, especially since they've *TRIED* many times on that very note & challenge, and FAILED...

... apk

Hahaha - "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:24 · Score: 0

From this challenge put to you by myself -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41407023

* Just like I KNEW you would!

(Since you're nothing more than a profanity-spewing little "ne'er-do-well" troll, nothing more... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> This? Well... you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual "inimitable style":

THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" & it always is, vs. "ne'er-do-well" ac trolls that attempt illogical off-topic ad hominem attacks (& since they are always done zero with their lives losers).

... apk

He put up a challenge you RAN from, lol by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:27 · Score: 0

Here http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41407023 and we don't see you disproving his 21 points on hosts files being superior to both AdBlock and DNS (and both of their issues which hosts overcome).

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" (lmao, You FAIL troll) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:33 · Score: 0

Face my challenge to you here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41407023 and we don't see you disproving my 21 points on hosts files being superior to both AdBlock and DNS (and both of their issues which hosts overcome) here either http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406221

* Good Luck - you'll NEED it, badly, on BOTH accounts!

APK

P.S.=> Mainly since I KNOW you won't be able to disprove my points in either one (or come up with more & better ones either as well)!

That "all said & aside"?

Well, thus, you just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual "inimitable style":

THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"...

... apk

To the pusscake that downmodded my post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:39 · Score: 0

I challenge you to disprove ALL 21 of my points in favor of custom hosts files over BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS (and BOTH of their shortcomings which hosts files overcome as well):

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406221

* Good Luck - you'll NEED it!

(Especially since I know that nobody here EVER HAS, and they have tried 100's of times, lol... only to FAIL!)

APK

P.S.=> Yes, I tell you all - it is NOT EASY being "World-Class" like me! So, that "all said & aside"? Well... you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual "inimitable style":

THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" - & it always is, vs. off-topic illogical failing ad hominem attack attempting ac trolls (whom I have doubtless 'dusted' many times before in their registered 'luser' guises which are usually only 1 of many alternate 'sockpuppets' they use)...

... apk

Others /.'er agree w/ me vs. you (50++:1 ratio) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 02:53 · Score: 0

50++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM (as well as security pros quoted below also):

---

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363)

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752)

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050)

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958)

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012)

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10

Re:Others /.'er agree w/ me vs. you (50++:1 ratio) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:44 · Score: 0

apk silences his troll critics and they run like always. Nothing new, move along.
Re:Others /.'er agree w/ me vs. you (50++:1 ratio) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 04:57 · Score: 0

I wish I could live in a carefully constructed delusional reality similar to people like apk. Would make life a lot more pleasant.
That said, I do internally chuckle a bit every time his name pops up; apk spam is kind of like comfort food. Kind of like when Mike Kristopeitt calls our mum's face something.
Re:Others /.'er agree w/ me vs. you (50++:1 ratio) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:01 · Score: 0

This wasn't delusions, it looked like you ran from it http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41411099

Entitled Much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:12 · Score: 0

The level of entitlement is astonishing. You are *not* entitled to do as you please with my personal data. You are not allowed to sell my data (that is about me) to other people or use my personal data in ways that I don't want you to.

If you're offering a free service, it does not entitle you to my personal data.

Unjustifiable downmods fail vs. this challenge by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:37 · Score: 0

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41411099

APK

P.S.=> That goes out to ANYONE who had the audacity to "hit & run" downmod my post here that I am replying to now to raise it to visibility again, for a GOOD reason (below in a challenge to trolls):

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406151

That "all said & aside"?

Well - I welcome ANYONE to disprove all of my 21 points on hosts files here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406221

In the benefits to end users of them custom hosts files yield for them (go for it, since I just LOVE seeing trolls fail)

... apkWell - I welcome ANYONE to disprove all of my 21 points on hosts files here:

All the yelling is just hyperbole. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 03:40 · Score: 0

We've all heard the same arguments before about the "Do Not Call" list. The claims by the telemarketers about the size of their industry were exagerated. They also inlfated the size of the job loss that would occur. If you would belive what they claimed, the world would come to an end. The same is probably true for "Do Not Track". The Internet will be fine without tracking. As a matter of fact, if bussinesses like Double Click and Facebook closed down nothing of value would be lost.

tilante = "the Ayatollah of U-RAN", lmao! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:20 · Score: 0

Since tilante ran after shooting his mouth off vs. this challenge http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41411099 and RAN like a beyotch since the facts in that post easily SILENCED his trollish bullshit... lol!

tilante says: I am from I-RAN (from apk's challenge)

LMAO!

tilante = "the Ayatollah of U-RAN", lmao... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 05:26 · Score: 0

LMAO -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41411099 since you certainly RAN from a slew of facts and testimonials that blew your stupid ass away, lol...

Tracking not required to do targetted ads by Lennie · 2012-09-21 06:34 · Score: 1

These people are just being alarmist.

You can even do targetted ads without tracking:

https://air.mozilla.org/tracking-not-required/

--
New things are always on the horizon

Re:Tracking not required to do targetted ads by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 13:16 · Score: 1

You can... do targetted ads without tracking...
True, advertise on websites and pages relevant to your product and you're not only doing targeted ads, your audience is self-selecting.

--
THINK! It's patriotic

The best solution for both consumer and website by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 06:39 · Score: 0

There are two income models for websites:

1) You pay real money for the service
2) You use targeted ads to generate incoming through advertising

The problem I have with #2 is when you visit a website using this model they take your information or expose you to ads you might not want to see. In return the user thinks they are getting a "free" service, but really they are paying with their privacy and personal information. The only way to avoid this is to not use that website or to install browser plugins (such as AdBlock and Ghostery) to block Ads and tracking.

I think the best solution is that all web browsers should have the ability to block both tracking and ads, and this is turned on by default. If a user visits a website that is using advertising as their income method, then a notification should come up telling the user if they want access to this service (or content), then they must disable their tracking or ad blocker for their website. That makes it a "opt-in", and is a win-win for both the consumer and the website. The website could offer both a advertising method to content, or a pay method to content. At least the consumer knows how he is paying for the service!!

Eric Wheeler... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-21 08:54 · Score: 0

is secretly under the employ of Google?

Google would be the one of the biggest losers in losing the ability to effectively target in advertising. After all, Google is an advertising company.

The evil consequences of 'Track' by PPH · 2012-09-21 10:40 · Score: 1

Just happened to me today:

A few days ago, a friend asked me to fix her DVD player. I popped it open and found a bad ribbon cable. So I did a search and found one (on eBay) for $53.00. So I e-mailed her with my estimate. She said, "Go ahead" and I went back to eBay to order the cable. Except now, a search on the same part and model number only returns a cable for $60.00 (from a different vendor.

Solution: Clear the browser cookies, re-run the search and now the $53.00 part shows up again.

You marketing people can take your tracking scams and blow them out your Goatse ass.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

The mentioned article is... by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 12:20 · Score: 1

...typical corporate bloviation. The kind of myopic propaganda that is designed to promote the concept that the only legitimate method of valuing anything is the market, and that any attempt to value something with anything other than the market is, by definition, illegitimate.

A "free and unfettered" market leads inexorably to the legitimization of prostitution, the selling of virginity ( https://www.google.com/search?q=Selling+her+virginity ) , trafficking in children, slavery, murder for hire, etc. It actually makes the entire concept of corruption impossible, while making it's reality unavoidable (and even ideal). Of course you sell your votes! It's not only legal (get out of the way of the market you evil government), it's the only way to measure your value, to yourself, your family, and to society. It's the very definition of a slippery slope.

Remember, if everything has a monetary price, anything can be bought or sold for money.

And if the market is the only legitimate measure of value, then everything has a monetary price. (And is thus terribly devalued, no matter the price.)

--

THINK! It's patriotic

Drawbacks of Targeted Marketing for Consumers by DirtyLiar · 2012-09-21 13:41 · Score: 1

I may be the target audience for a product, but that does not mean that I am in the market for that product. Besides, I'm only happy to see ads that are relevant to what I'm doing at the time, and I'm unhappy when I'm presented with an ad that betray more than a casual knowledge about my preferences / hobbies / interests / skills. It makes me paranoid, with good reason.

But more importantly, information gathered about you for targeted ads can be used not only to rule you IN to certain advertisements, but can and will be used just as easily rule you OUT of opportunities for prizes, discounts, etc.

Targeted advertising does not only mean targeting some, it also means ignoring others. It's costly to advertise to those who will not buy your product at a profit that you are willing to sell at.

If my information shows that I am not an impulse buyer, that I do extensive research on all the products that I buy, and I always buy things based on the price/performance ratio. Why should anybody ever offer me a discount or coupon?

If I have a record of only buying something when it's on sale, a discount or coupon does not create more value (profit) for the seller, it subtracts value it!

And if I buy something with a coupon or a discount that I was going to buy anyway, again the seller has LOST money. Offering me coupons, discounts and other incentives is illogical.

Coupons, discounts and other buyer incentives are based on the concept of creating value (profits) for the seller, not the buyer. Otherwise, what is the seller's motive for offering them? The seller must at least perceive a value to itself, otherwise it won't do it.

And marketing is based on the idea of creating perceived value in the customer's mind, at the lowest cost to the seller. Again, why else do it?

The most reliable method of increasing profits is to increase impulse buying. In impulse buying the seller bypasses any normal product evaluation done by the customer by making the product appear more attractive and / or valuable. Just as a pretty paint job on a house / car can substantially raise it's supposed 'value' far past the cost of getting it painted. This makes a pretty paint-job a rational decision on the seller's part, because it will bring in more money than it cost.

If my buying decisions are based on price/performance, then why offer me any incentives to buy at all? They can't keep their profits high if they cater to price/performance buyers. Only a drop in price vs performance will attract those buyers, and that lowers profits.

Instead, why not ignore those buyers and focus entirely on those who perceive value in things that have little or no cost to the seller? That is profitable business plan. Catering to those who demand a low price v performance ratio, and who ignore low-cost "improvements" and inducements is a plan to barely scratch out a profit.

--

THINK! It's patriotic

Re:AdBlock is "crippled" by default by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-22 10:51 · Score: 0

AdBlock doesn't do as much as hosts do or as well http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3132773&cid=41406221

Re:If targeted ads were accurate, I would like the by brantondaveperson · 2012-09-23 11:43 · Score: 1

I would welcome targeted advertising if it was even close to the things I am interested in

But that's the thing with advertising. The more targeted it is, the less you actually need it. Because if you really want the things in the advert, then you would have already researched the options, and probably decided what you were going to buy. Advertising is, more or less, completely useless. How many things have you ever bought because you saw them in an advert?

Advertising works by creating demand. The most effective advertising campaigns in history have always worked by making people think that they need things that they didn't really need. Engagement rings, for example, were the product of an advertising campaign. In my not especially humble opinion, the world would be a better place without advertising of any kind.

290 comments