Student Project Could Kill Digital Ad Targeting

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Student Project Could Kill Digital Ad Targeting

Posted by Soulskill on Friday July 5, 2013 @05:01AM from the send-spike-...-spike-sent dept.

An anonymous reader sends this quote from Ad Age: "[Rachel Law's] creation, called 'Vortex,' is a browser extension that's part game, part ad-targeting disrupter that helps people turn their user profiles and the browsing information into alternate fake identities that have nothing to do with reality. People who use the browser tool, which works with Firefox and Chrome, effectively confuse the technologies that categorize web audiences into likely running shoe buyers, in-market auto buyers, or moms interested in cooking and football. ... It's a bit like the ad blocker extensions of yore, except it scrambles information to trick ad targeters, all in service of an addictive game deemed 'Site Miner,' which allows players to fish for cookies visualized as sea creatures. Players can gobble up cookies Pac-Man style, creating a pool of profile information that has nothing to do with their actual web behavior. ... Vortex features a profile switcher that people can use and share to take on a new identity while browsing the web. 'It's a way of masking your identity across networks,' she said."

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ads? But what ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:06 · Score: 0

My hosts refuses to tell me...
1. Re:Ads? But what ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  My hosts refuses to tell me...
  Hosts?
  What?! You're a self aware parasitic entity? Occupying multiple hosts?
  What planet are you from?!
  And most importantly, do you have a porn site?
I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:07 · Score: 0

I support everything that destroys ads and marketing. Thank you for working in this direction!
1. Re:I fully support this! by jellomizer · 2013-07-05 05:21 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Then you will not have as many websites.
  Making and supporting a web site takes time and money.
  To support a website you need to be able to do the following.
  1. Have the site support or extend a product or service you are paying for. This is most corporate web sites. Their features are about the company and extras are there to keep you on it so you remember the name.
  2. Some sort or grant (IE Begging for money). This will work as long as you have enough supporters.
  3. Pay to use the service (Pay Wall). Your product really needs to be special enough for this.
  4. Use some space to advertise.
  I am not sure if you remembered how horrable adds were in the late 1990's early 2000. Adds and adds cluttering your system all about irrelevant stuff. Today for most reputable sites You have a couple adds, more or less about stuff you are interested in, they are not often a lot more subdued and out of the way. However because they are targeted towards your profile they are more useful and don't need to be so much in your face.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:I fully support this! by Darkness404 · 2013-07-05 05:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  When there is high-quality content, supporters will keep it alive. Look at xkcd, not an ad on the site but yet it still remains updated and high-quality and free.
  
  Yeah, we might lose some mediocrity, but high quality will remain.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
3. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  I don't see how targeting makes Ads any less 'in your face.' That seems to be a result of people getting sick of flash/punch the monkey/sound/etc. An ad for Newegg could be just as irritating as an ad for rolex watches or cruise deals. It's more that ads from 201X are less irritating than ads from 200X in general.
4. Re:I fully support this! by mwvdlee · 2013-07-05 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  Today for most reputable sites You have a couple adds, more or less about stuff you are interested in.
  Let me FTFY:
  
  Today for most reputable sites You have a couple adds, more or less about stuff you were interested in before buying it from a different site last month.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
5. Re:I fully support this! by Frosty+Piss · 2013-07-05 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Look at xkcd, not an ad on the site...
  See this link?
  
  You can get the Subways comic as a poster!
  That's an ad. Them posters ain't free.
  Not a bad ad, not an obnoxious ad, but still an ad.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
6. Re:I fully support this! by Entropius · 2013-07-05 05:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's different, IMO, since it's part of the site. It's the difference between going to a concert and the band selling CD's, and going to a concert and the band painting a Wal-Mart logo on the stage.
7. Re:I fully support this! by shipofgold · 2013-07-05 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why destroy all ads and marketing? We still need a mechanism that allows us to know what is available, and at what price.
  What I want to destroy is the means for marketers to set prices of goods and services based on "targeted" information that seemingly have no relation to the product or service being purchased. I hate when people in Florida have are offered a product via a WWW site that costs more than the same exact product offered to someone in Massachusetts. It is even worse when you take a look at the picture on a global basis. I hate it when I pay $100 more for an airline seat than the guy sitting next to me. We both got the same exact service, but at wildly divergent prices.
  Make a good product...sell it at a price point determined by supply and demand (which I am guessing won't fluctuate each minute) where a reasonable profit can be had, and be happy with it. Probably a little naive...
8. Re:I fully support this! by Penguinisto · 2013-07-05 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Then you will not have as many websites.
  Only true insofar as quantity. Quality OTOH will likely improve, if you want the truth. Any site that relies (even in large part) on ad impressions for its survival is likely one that has starved itself to death a long time ago, is is barely straggling along.
  there are far too many other ways of making income from a website (an internal store, premium content, even donations stand out as examples.)
  
  Making and supporting a web site takes time and money.
  So does any other worthwhile endeavor. Doesn't mean it has to have adverts, though.
  
  I am not sure if you remembered how horrable adds were in the late 1990's early 2000.
  I beg to differ - it's uglier today.
  Turn off all your blockers/add-ins/extensions sometime, and go visit ZDNet or parts of CNET. They stand out as only a couple examples of how a company can jack in a shit-ton of intrusive dancing adverts (where even clicking on what looks like blank space will toss an advert at you). Also note that back in the late '90s you only had popups and cookies at worst (okay, they had Bonzi Buddy or whatever-the-hell-that-was, but that bullshit required your explicit collusion to install).
  Today you have to contend with LSOs, stealth "toolbars" that slide in just because you updated Java and weren't paying attention, and other intrusive-as-fuck tracking techniques that slip right by most non-techies. Oh, and I won't even have to mention that now we get to put up with ISP collusion as a matter-of-course (ad-packed redirects for failed DNS lookups, anyone?)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
9. Re:I fully support this! by Cenan · 2013-07-05 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  Making and supporting a web site takes time and money.
  Yes it does, and if you can't break even with it by asking for donations, you either accept that it's a hobby and you're not skilled enough to run it professionally, or your shove ads in people's faces. If we remove the latter option, I assert that the web will be a better place for it.
  However, the main focus of the creator is the discrimination, that the information she is jumbling enables, like higher prices for certain groups of people. That we can sweep the legs from under advertisers too with her tool/game is just sweet, sweet payback for defacating in our beautiful playground.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
10. Re:I fully support this! by Em+Adespoton · 2013-07-05 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's different, IMO, since it's part of the site. It's the difference between going to a concert and the band selling CD's, and going to a concert and the band painting a Wal-Mart logo on the stage.
  More like the ticket takers selling attendance stats to Wal-Mart while handing out serialized flyers as people come in the door.
11. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  "We still need a mechanism that allows us to know what is available, and at what price."
  Yep. It's called "google", or if that doesn't work for you, there are various sites that specialize in comparing, reviewing and telling you were you can buy various products. Hey, it will even rank the various results by cost, if you like! Advertising is completely superfluous.
12. Re:I fully support this! by Captain+Splendid · 2013-07-05 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't be an idiot. A proper capitalistic system where information is transparent and the consumer is given the tools and the latitude to make informed and cost effective decisions makes for shitty QE reports. And who's more important? Little old you or shareholders of $CORPORATION?
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
13. Re:I fully support this! by Cenan · 2013-07-05 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  Right now, facebook
  wants me to save 15% on my vacation (no thanks),
  also offers to save me 40% on my vacation (are you fucking deaf?),
  has determined that i need a harness for falling protection (huh?),
  thinks that I would probably like a pulled pork burger (yuck!),
  and wants me to test my smarts on some trade school's website (something to do on my 40% off vacation?).
  Targeted ads are a joke, and this from a company that probably has the best vantage point in the whole goddamn world to shove ads in my face.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
14. Re:I fully support this! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-07-05 06:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'm a military contractor.
  I'm also a fitness instructor.
  Due to my searches for weaponry, vegas trips, and yoga mats Adsense thinks I'm gay.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
15. Re:I fully support this! by icebike · 2013-07-05 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  When there is high-quality content, supporters will keep it alive. Look at xkcd, not an ad on the site but yet it still remains updated and high-quality and free.
  Yeah, we might lose some mediocrity, but high quality will remain.
  Your choice of what example you give of "High Quality" leaves me baffled. Of all the bazillion sites on the internet you chose a comic.
  But looking past that.....
  How do "supporters" keep something alive? What puts food on the owners table and shoes on his children's feet?
  12 million hits per hour does nothing but put him further in debt to his hosting company.
  If I want free content, I put up with some ads. If the Ads get too obnoxious the content is no longer worth the trouble and I leave.
  Or maybe I read the site through RSS, depriving the site of all its revenue, my way of telling the site that their ads campaign is
  too intensive and obnoxious.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
16. Re:I fully support this! by meerling · 2013-07-05 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  The advertisers want to shove those ads down your throat in a rapid fire super sized orgy of marketing intrusion.
  The reason why the ads aren't as bad now is because people rebelled and found ways to kick their asses off the websites.
  Then the advertisers found ways around those first restrictions and plastered everyones faces again.
  The users again found a way to deal with it.
  This back and forth went on many times, and will probably continue for a long time to go.
  
  The "not so bad" ads you see now are the result of this war. Some of the advertisers finally figured out that people do NOT want constant mega in your face advertisements, it just pisses them off to the point where they find a way to get rid of them. Because of that, the advertisers have accepted a reduction of intrusion to a level that will fall below many peoples threshold of bullshit they don't want to see such that they don't bother to take action.
  It's like the difference between a fly buzzing in your face and landing on your nose, vs the one flying around down the hallway. Which one are you going to swat? Most people won't even bother with the one down the hall unless they are an obsessed fly killer, or they've finally gotten tired of the last 3 hours of faint buzzing.
  The advertisers want to be the fly on your nose, but everybody kills those, so they have no choice but to move out of swatting range if they want to live.
17. Re:I fully support this! by tqk · 2013-07-05 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's more that ads from 201X are less irritating than ads from 200X in general.
  Not at all true. Turn on a TV. Obnoxiously insipid and puerile, stars in their eyes twenty-somethings going gaga over shiny baubles they can't really begin to understand, and they want the latest version. Females futzing over cosmetics, shampoo, overpriced clothing, men extolling the virtues beer, of overpriced fuel guzzling hotrods, both of them falling for weight loss snakeoil, expensive and unnecessary pharmaceuticals, breast augmentation, hairloss treatments and cat toys. Halitosis, body odour, split ends, cracked fingernails, longer lashes ...
  Ick. Holy !@#$%^& boring, and offensive! I hate sharing a planet with people like that, and you know what? Real people AREN'T like that, but "Madison Avenue" portrays us that way. The commercialized web is no better. I'm reminded of that, "We've already determined you're a whore. Now we're just haggling over price."
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
18. Re:I fully support this! by JestersGrind · 2013-07-05 06:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm confused. Are you saying that Adsense is spot on or way off?
19. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  "I'm confused. Are you saying that Adsense is spot on or way off?"
  Hey man, It's don't ask don't tell. Remember?
20. Re:I fully support this! by Dragonslicer · 2013-07-05 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  That might not be a great example; Facebook seems to be particularly terrible at targeting advertising. The best 0-for that I've seen included advertisements for meeting Christian singles (I'm not Christian, and Facebook knows it), meeting "bad" girls (I guess Facebook doesn't have any specific reason that I'm not interested in "bad" girls, but I have no idea what they do know that would lead them to that idea), and an online MBA program.
21. Re:I fully support this! by HiThere · 2013-07-05 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  FWIW, I don't use blockers/add-ins/extensions. Of course, that means I find MANY web sites so obnoxious I only go there once. And that's without haveing flash installed.
  ISTM that the basic idea is good, but it should, itself, be targetable. I.e., you should be able to "greenlight" certain web-sites, and to "red-light" certain extensions. This would, of course, interfere with it's anonymizing feature, but not, I feel excessively.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
22. Re:I fully support this! by Zargg · 2013-07-05 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Females futzing over cosmetics, shampoo, overpriced clothing, men extolling the virtues beer, of overpriced fuel guzzling hotrods, both of them falling for weight loss snakeoil, expensive and unnecessary pharmaceuticals, breast augmentation, hairloss treatments and cat toys.
  
  I have to ask...what show are you watching that has cat toy commercials that are so evil and offensive? I'm not sure I've ever even seen a cat toy commercial...
23. Re:I fully support this! by mwvdlee · 2013-07-05 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  I'm guessing repeated searches for "catholic schoolgirls" are to blame.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
24. Re:I fully support this! by Demolition · 2013-07-05 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  I have to ask...what show are you watching that has cat toy commercials that are so evil and offensive? I'm not sure I've ever even seen a cat toy commercial...
  I assume that he's talking about the Cat's Meow motorized cat toy gizmo. This thing is advertised non-stop on daytime TV.
25. Re:I fully support this! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-07-05 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly I'm a little confused myself so I'm not sure.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
26. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Think of the children's feet!
27. Re:I fully support this! by jc42 · 2013-07-05 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Look at xkcd, not an ad on the site...
  See this link?
  
  You can get the Subways comic as a poster!
  That's an ad. Them posters ain't free.
  Hmmm ... The only instance of "Subways" that by browser (firefox) can find here is that one in your post. And now probably the two in my post. ;-)
  So where are these "ads" that supposedly exist on slashdot? Curious readers want to know ...
  Actually, some years back I got a nice email from someone (or something) at /. say that, due to my karma from the mod system, I would no longer receive ads. I was surprised by this, since I hadn't ever noticed ads here. Maybe it's because I have had Adblock installed since it first came out. I dunno, but it was interesting to see that the /. gang "rewards" people who do a reasonable job of posting and modding by not sending them ads. I didn't tell them that it wasn't necessary, since I wasn't seeing their ads anyway. And I suppose this could be a reasonable approach toward building a web site of reasonably high quality. (Not that everything here qualifies, of course. ;-)
  And I have occasionally had a bit of geekish fun "tweaking" /.'s mod system. I'm still trying for a funny+insightful+troll mod, but I've never got it. All 3 of the 2-item mods, yes, but never all three for the same post. It's a real challenge, since it's so difficult to guess what someone with mod points will consider trolling. And there's the other problem, that posts intended as funny are so often modded insightful, and vice versa.
  But probably none of this has anything to do with ad targetting. (Should that have 2 or 3 t's? Now that'll probably produce a real flame war ... ;-)
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
28. Re:I fully support this! by jc42 · 2013-07-05 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Due to my searches for weaponry, vegas trips, and yoga mats Adsense thinks I'm gay.
  Similarly, my wife's interest in old movies and a few other "cultural" things seems to have convinced AdSense, Netflix, Amazon and others that she's a gay male. I'm not sure what they think I am, and maybe I don't want to know.
  An even funnier confusion started years ago, when she was a student at a local university, and a friend of hers who was from Russian discovered that she was pregnant. The husband was still in Russia, and wasn't here when it was time for the birth, so my wife went along to the hospital to help her deal with the bureaucratic types there (and as an occasional translator). She soon discovered that the hospital had put her name down as the "father" of the child, when she started getting ads for new-baby products. This has followed her since then, although the friend and her son have long since returned to Russia. Two decades later, she still occasionally gets junk mail implying that she has a son. (She has two grandsons, but no sons.)
  So she's a gay male who is the father of a Russian baby. And I'm married to her (which is legal here in Massachusetts ;-).
  This tells us a lot about the credibility of "ad targeting". ;-)
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
29. Re:I fully support this! by kwbauer · 2013-07-05 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  He can join the Free/Open Source Shoes movement.
30. Re:I fully support this! by kaatochacha · 2013-07-05 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Just screw with it. I occasionally go on facebook and search for odd, disjointed things: For example, I'll LIKE adult diapera, search for childrens clothes, then look up athiest and christian groups.
  I get the weirdest ads.
31. Re:I fully support this! by sdsucks · 2013-07-05 12:43 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Updated, high quality, and free? Sure, to employ what 1 individual? Showing ads for himself (Uh, store link much, son)? In a highly marketable position?
  I love XKCD, but you are out to fucking lunch if you think that business model applies to even 1% of the websites you visit on a daily basis. Open your fucking eyes and unclog your ears you fucking idiot.
  Do you think your favourite financial information website can just start selling coffee mugs and stickers to pay their traffic and licensing fees? Or that that model will work for newspapers? Or even a place like Slashdot? Fuck some people are goddam stupid, and you are one. Once again, proving the point, that the term "nerd" is in no way associated with the term "intelligent".
  Seriously, son, fuck off and learn something. Your kind makes me fucking sick.
32. Re:I fully support this! by sdsucks · 2013-07-05 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Since your such a fucking tool, I realized I had to point this out further:
  From a making-a-living perspective: The whole XKCD comic exists to create a brand to sell merchandise. For example: http://store.xkcd.com./
  Fuck I wish stupid people couldn't post on the internet.
33. Re:I fully support this! by Joe+Tie. · 2013-07-05 14:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's pretty much my biggest issue with ads. Want to try selling me something, sure. I really don't have a problem with a respectable attempt to demonstrate a products value. I do have a problem when the person doing it is all but flat out stating that they feel we're drooling morons. The chances I've had to actually talk to people involved with advertising has made it pretty clear that the industry has no desire to move away from that model. Unless they do, I also don't feel bad about getting shows from newsgroups with the ads cut out, using adblock when it works, or even just staring at a blank screen for 90 seconds rather than watch a 30 second commercial in those instances when it doesn't function properly.
  
  --
  Everything will be taken away from you.
34. Re:I fully support this! by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-07-05 14:28 · Score: 2
  
  Then you will not have as many websites.
  Awesome. I can thing of metastatic cancers like Facebook thet can go away right away.
  Making and supporting a web site takes time and money.
  And you know what? If advertising is not intrusive, I'll even watch it. I think most people will. I think most people understand that the sites and merchants are there to make money. But that isn't really the issue.
  When you have sites stalking you, as we do now, placing cookies in non cookie places, companies like Facebook tracking you, whether you have a facebook account or not, and others, it gets a little annoying to say the least. And I would be more than happy for them to go away and stay away. I don't measure the quality of the web by the proliferation of junk sites.
  The very odd thing is that in trying to sell you their goods, they have declared war on you. Facebook stalks you all over the web. It's almost understandable that Google would have data to offer with search analysis, but even they are stalking you heavily. Just the other night, I went to a Google maps page to check some map stuff out. Never signed in, just tried a few things with maps, and decided that wasn't the way I wanted to go. in maybe 15 minutes, I got an email to "anonymous+ a number". Was I supposed to think that because they sent it to my email as anonymous, they didn't know it was me?
  That's a big line to cross, because they now have associated my name with my surfing habits. Just from visiting a page, nothing else. Right now, maybe that's just to target advertisement. Maybe that's it. For right now.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
35. Re:I fully support this! by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-07-05 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly I'm a little confused myself so I'm not sure.
  Do you like gladiator movies?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
36. Re:I fully support this! by datavirtue · 2013-07-05 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  It would be nice if you could flag ads or companies that you don't want to see again and have them be gone forever. To my sensibility the ads are in my face. I would like to be able to cancel ad displays that I do not find relevant--right now there is no feedback mechanism.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
37. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  Since your link seems to be dead, I think your analysis of the situation is wrong. There are people that do things because the love to. I understand that shuts out middlemen and can be scary to some people. I'm not so much sickened by your type, as saddened...
38. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  I filter alot of ads, but I find that the stuff I watch seems to have fairly well targeted ads, from an intelligence perspective. I read Network World and it has targetted ads that seem to be aimed at people with knowledge of networking. I watch FX and I get ads for video games and movies I might like. There is some sports and gambling drek, but not too much.
  
  One of my coworkers left the radio on an AM talk radio station and I was floored by the ads. They were obviously geared towards drooling morons. It made me wonder...
39. Re:I fully support this! by tibman · 2013-07-05 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  The link worked for me.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
40. Re:I fully support this! by tibman · 2013-07-05 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Only if there's a lot of drama and talking.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
41. Re:I fully support this! by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-07-05 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Then you will not have as many websites.
  Omelettes...cracked eggs. A price to pay, but worth it.
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
42. Re:I fully support this! by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-07-05 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why destroy all ads and marketing?
  Because advertisers have made a really useful resource such a pain in the arse to use. While we're at it we should also get rid of non interweb advertising as well.
  
  We still need a mechanism that allows us to know what is available, and at what price.
  Such as a website people can go to when they particularly WANT to see ads. One that includes the ability to search for goods, services and their suppliers. And is, of course, payed for by the scumb^w advertisers.
  
  What I want to destroy is the means for marketers to set prices of goods and services based on "targeted" information that seemingly have no relation to the product or service being purchased. I hate when people in Florida have are offered a product via a WWW site that costs more than the same exact product offered to someone in Massachusetts. It is even worse when you take a look at the picture on a global basis. I hate it when I pay $100 more for an airline seat than the guy sitting next to me. We both got the same exact service, but at wildly divergent prices.
  Make a good product...sell it at a price point determined by supply and demand (which I am guessing won't fluctuate each minute) where a reasonable profit can be had, and be happy with it. Probably a little naive...
  Yep.
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
43. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  Shareholders important? Only the ones holding enough shares to warrant attention from the company's executives and other board members...
44. Re:I fully support this! by Inka22 · 2013-07-06 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  I got news for you.
  Do you have a 401k? Any of your relatives have pension plans? Did you get paid scholarship to go to that college that failed to teach you even the basics of economics?
  Congratulations. You're an evul "shareholder" of a bunch of corporations.
  (well, in the last case, your scholarship was generated from your endowment being a shareholder).
45. Re:I fully support this! by Inka22 · 2013-07-06 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I have an idea. How about you stop spouting nonsense and go read Joel on Software blog where he explains how pricing discrimination works and why it happens. You can't even accuse him of being a right wing corporate shill - he's a small business owner with internet-wide technical reputation and pretty far-left political views.
46. Re: I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-06 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Ads ... adds (to add something)
47. Re:I fully support this! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-07-06 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Who doesn't?
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
48. Re:I fully support this! by RockDoctor · 2013-07-07 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, what you're saying is : most website writers don't have anything relating to the real world (class 1), don't know how to raise money (2), don't have anything which people value sufficiently to part with money for (3), so they sell advertising space and their users vacant glassy-eyed stares?
  Remind me again - does Slashdot have adverts? I've been getting that thing about "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising" for so long now, I can't really remember if it has advertising or not. (OK, yes, there's slashvertisement, but "meh" ; some of that can go hilariously wrong.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
49. Re:I fully support this! by Ash-Fox · 2013-07-08 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Look at xkcd, not an ad on the site but yet it still remains updated and high-quality and free.
  I went through most of the pages, they look terrible when stretching the comics to fit 1080p. It's even worse on retina display devices!
  Clearly they should have had more ads to compensate for this.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
50. Re:I fully support this! by Captain+Splendid · 2013-07-09 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, and no.
  
  Shit, I still can't believe I have a chequing account.
  
  Also, I never called shareholders evil, that was your freudian addition. Myself, I would have difficulty pinning moral agency on a such a cypher-like class of people.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
51. Re:I fully support this! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-12 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  shut the fuck up, little faggot bitch
I'm Sparticus! by Thud457 · 2013-07-05 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative

to paraphrase Tyler Durden:
You are not your cookie trail.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:I'm Sparticus! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Please note: It's Spartacus.
2. Re:I'm Sparticus! by Thud457 · 2013-07-05 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  only the real Sparticus would know that. Or his mother.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by marked23 · 2013-07-05 05:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not sure why I should hate targeted ads. I actually see ads for things I'm interested in... instead of random stuff. The tracking, ad infinitum, has always been going on, will always be going on.
1. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by mi · 2013-07-05 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Exactly my feelings. It is one thing to block the ads completely — they waste my bandwidth and RAM, slow down page-loading, and degrade my privacy. But if any ad makes it through anyway, I'd rather it be related to something I may be remotely interested in.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely, and I'm always amazed when people get so upset every time advertisers learn to target better. I can only guess it has something to do with lack of willpower. People know hey are susceptible to advertising and get mad because they know they are going to get "tricked" out of their money, or something like that.
3. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Cro+Magnon · 2013-07-05 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  IME, the targeted ads are only slightly better than the random stuff. Lately, I've been getting a lot of ads for stuff I recently bought. Obviously, I'm interested, but I've already bought the damn product!
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
4. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, WTF people?
  On top of that, all these extensions to block ads are going to end up backfiring in a huge way. When sites start to lose significant amounts of money, they're going to move to more and more annoying and integrated ads, until the ads become indistinguishable from the content itself. That's just making the web worse for everyone.
  So block the annoying ads, let the non-annoying ones through, and don't destroy the internet.
5. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by sjames · 2013-07-05 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes they're not just targeted but also tailored. Consider if the prices get jacked up if your browsing history suggests you have disposable income...
6. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly my feelings. It is one thing to block the ads completely — they waste my bandwidth and RAM, slow down page-loading, and degrade my privacy. But if any ad makes it through anyway, I'd rather it be related to something I may be remotely interested in.
  I don't.
  See, I realize my human limitation that because of millions of years of evolution, I am suggestible. I can dispute it quite well, but there are times when I wonder why am I thinking about a product the way I am.
  My weakness is tools - like DeWalt tools. I find when I'm in the market for a power tool, I am drawn to that sweet - pretty- lovely Bright yellow and black plastic power tool - "Built Tough! Guaranteed!" - Ooooooooooo.
  With some folks, it's the illusion of "freedom" of owning and riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle. And for others, it's owning a Gucci something or another.
  And then there's the illusion that the skinny, emaciated, fake boobed, Victoria Secret Model is the ultimate of female beauty.
  I can and have been swayed and it really pisses me off when I discover - after the fact - that I have.
  It's not easy. Even Buddhist Masters get sucked in - I've seen it.
  TL;DR - So, I'd rather have tampon ads and homosexual porn marketed at me than something that I'm interested in.
  I take that back, The Gay guys are in awesome shape - usually - and I'd feel pretty shitty seeing their ripped abs.
7. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  I think the author is playing for the long game (when the ad frenzy slows down).
8. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Thud457 · 2013-07-05 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  bah, you're just imagining improbable scenarios...
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
9. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Joce640k · 2013-07-05 05:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm not sure why I should hate targeted ads. I actually see ads for things I'm interested in... instead of random stuff.
  Nice theory.
  What actually happens is you only ever see ads for something you bought two years ago and have no intention of buying again. Either that or something you looked at once and thought "How can people be so stupid...?" then you spend the next six months seeing dancing adverts for it.
  
  --
  No sig today...
10. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Joce640k · 2013-07-05 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When sites start to lose significant amounts of money, they're going to move to more and more annoying and integrated ads, until the ads become indistinguishable from the content itself..
  I still won't see them, and if they hate their users that much then I probably won't care if they collapse.
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2013-07-05 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure why I should hate targeted ads. I actually see ads for things I'm interested in... instead of random stuff
  Because its all a form offensive psychological attack, in which the advertiser believes he can overpower you and often does. Why participate in that?
  Targeted ads are just a refinement; like a 500 lb JDAM instead of a 2000 lb Mk83. It'll still destroy you just as well.
  If you need a thing you'll go out and search for it. If you don't need it, don't subject yourself to psychological attack.
12. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Because "targeted ads" suck immensely and really only rarely seem to apply to me? I mean, why the hell do I only get ads for things AFTER I've purchased something?
13. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  This is how I honestly feel about it.
  I would rather see ads for things _I_ actually like as opposed to seeing some shit about alcohol or crappyMusic431.
  No, I would rather see webhosting, or games, or computer parts, or electronics, or film / TV.
  Why would I want to destroy targeted ads? OH NO THEY KNOW ME, SPOOKY.
  Hey, guess what, there is at least 500+ people who have intricate knowledge of my life, including people I have never met.
  I can't give any less of a shit if 1 more does.
  There is only one legit concern which is mentioned in another child post to this, and that is when some sites increase prices a little.
  So, if you do ever see an ad for something you like, check it with a proxy, any random proxy on the thousands of proxies on proxy list sites.
  But even then, most likely the site is also probably less known anyway so check the sites validity with Web of Trust and other community-run sites that review shop sites, porn, music or whatever else it is you have come across.
  After that, it really just comes down to this - people against targeted ads more than random ads are either:
  some crazy tinfoilhat like person,
  lies to everyone they know, including most likely their self.
  So, slashdotters against Tads, which are you?
  Or do you actually have any other reason, besides the section below that is.
  But then there are just people against ads period. Must be a slow, lonely world in that room.
  The only thing anyone should ever block are popups and plugin advertisers, and those with horribly abusive and distracting animation FPS on GIFs.
  Sites have terrible ads? Tell them and say why they are terrible. Tell others to do the same.
  If more people actually tell webmasters that their ad systems are shit and to go with those that aren't abusive, the world would be a far better place.
14. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by saihung · 2013-07-05 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  If I do a search for a specific preamp somewhere, I see targeted ads for EXACTLY THAT PREAMP everywhere I browse. And even though I already bought it, I keep seeing those ads everywhere. It's annoying. And creepy.
15. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by KiloByte · 2013-07-05 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >quote>But if any ad makes it through anyway, I'd rather it be related to something I may be remotely interested in.
  I'd rather spend time making sure it won't get through the next time.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
16. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. People who use ad-supported media (like slashdot, for the most part) with ad-blockers turned on are just moochers and hypocrites. I don't use ad-blockers just out of principle. But ads that TRACK YOU are just creepy and I don't mind plugins like this to make the advertiser's jobs a little more difficult. What's more, the advertisers that track you are building a database, which we now know is likely to be feeding directly into government servers somewhere.
17. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  But if any ad makes it through anyway, I'd rather it be related to something I may be remotely interested in.
  Ah... so it doesn't bother you that someone may be looking over your shoulder and saying "hmm" upon seeing the ads targeted to you are for animated monster porn and penis enhancing dietary supplements? No, seriously, you really want true anonymity. You want privacy. You don't ever want to see a targeted advertisement.
18. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  I agree completely, and I'm always amazed when people get so upset every time advertisers learn to target better. I can only guess it has something to do with lack of willpower. People know hey are susceptible to advertising and get mad because they know they are going to get "tricked" out of their money, or something like that.
  Seeing ads for, say, women's health products, or Christian dating services, or retirement communities does me no harm and is sometimes amusing, in that it gives me a glimpse into [what marketers think] ladies or lonely religious people or old folks want.
  I can't see why seeing ads for, say, video games, or computer hardware, or sci-fi books, would make my life any better. It's not as if I am not aware of these things, or how to find the ones I want.
19. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yes of course it must be that people lack will-power, and of course it has nothing to do with getting a very tangible reminder that someone is keeping tabs on you.
  Disclaimer: Sarcasm may be present in this post
20. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymice · 2013-07-05 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Trying to cover operating costs whilst providing users a free service != hate.
  If you don't want to pay for the content you consume, to complain when they try to make up costs some other way.
  Bar pop-ups & intrusive flash ads, I see ad-blocking as unethical. Don't like the ads? Don't consume their content.
21. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by vux984 · 2013-07-05 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  I actually see ads for things I'm interested in...
  The goal of advertising and marketing is to convince you to buy their product, convince you that you want to buy it. To implant a brand name so when you think of a product you think of them, or trigger an impulse purchase.
  It is literally a form of brainwashing with the end result of separating you from your money.
  Only a complete idiot would willing participate by making it easier for marketers to get inside their heads.
22. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure why I should hate targeted ads. I actually see ads for things I'm interested in... instead of random stuff. The tracking, ad infinitum, has always been going on, will always be going on.
  I got a DWI. When I mentioned it to a friend in email, Google started targeting me with ads based on that. I don't want DWI lawyer ads on my screen for a number of reasons. So, now when I mention it in email I have to use code words. Just a real example for you to consider.
23. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'd rather spend time making sure it won't get through the next time.
  I would rather just ignore it and not spend any time on dealing with it one way or another.
24. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by marked23 · 2013-07-05 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough. I can see that being an annoyance. I did some research for my niece's wedding dress, and for a few days afterwards, I was targeted with wedding dress ads. But they went away soonafter.
25. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  I bought a textbook for class through amazon. Now amazon keeps sending my emails about other similar books. How is this useful? I bought a sump pump after doing some online searching for a decent one. 3 months later, I'm still getting ads for sump pumps. It is ridiculous.
26. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2013-07-05 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the goal - targeted advertisements - that offends me; it is the method. I simply do not like the idea of there being a profile of me available to anyone who wants it. This is increasingly useful data to not only marketers, but insurance companies, employers, banks, governments, criminals, and other unsavory sorts. I'd like to believe I'm not being targeted by any of them right now, but who knows what the future holds? And there's no telling into whose hands it will fall, either due to loose ethics or looser security. Worse, they compile this data without offering me - the source - any real recourse as to how it is to be used; how long they can keep it, what they can do with it or who they can give it to. It's an unfair bargain, often made unwittingly and I'm not averse to sabotaging the advertisers efforts.
  I love the idea behind this plugin.
27. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by dcollins · 2013-07-05 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  "I want the brainwashing used against me to be highly effective."
  
  --
  We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
28. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Please tell me how to let only ads that are 'not-annoying, not loaded from a 3rd party site, and not tracking me' through and i'll do that immediately. Please tell me. I don't mind ads, i mind the tracking, the loading times, the memory usage and of course too big, too loud ads.
  I very, very rarely buy anything based on ads. I bought a cd when i was like 10, i bought a wrapper from KFC once, because in the ad the guy was holding it with 2 hands, but then when i bought one, it was the size of a potato chip, so that sucked.
  Since most products suck some way, i try to find a bit information about the product before buying, ads aren't information. It's not their right to know what sites i look at. I buy what i need and the product i think is best for me. If i've already bought a god damn drill, i don't need to see more drill ads.
29. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2013-07-05 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  In response, let me counter with these three arguments:
  1) This is not an attack against advertising; it is an attack against /targeted/ advertising. Seeing as how the marketing industry thrived for decades without this technology, I think that the lack will not hurt them significantly. Websites can still put up advertisement banners that have worth to the readership (based on the content of the website) rather than relying on targeting specific ads at people based on a profile.
  2) Websites that use more obtrusive advertisements are going to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term readership. The tools to block the ads exist already and are amongst the most downloaded plugins already. Making ads even more annoying are going to simply drive visitors away.
  3) And so what if some advertisement-supported websites disappear (even, , slashdot!). Corporate sites will continue to exist as opt-in advertisment platforms for specific products, retail sites will continue to exist to sell those goods, and there are millions of dedicated fans who will put up websites using their own time and money to fund it. Oh, we might lose these megalithic corporate-sites (like Facebook) but I honestly don't see that as much of a loss. Too much power has been invested in these companies already; I'd prefer a more fragmented, federated web than something dominated by three or four giant entities anyway.
  Destroy the Internet, hah! It'll just make the Internet better.
30. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  Trying to cover operating costs whilst providing users a free service != hate.
  Can you please at least THINK before you join the discussion? Us anonymous bastards have to read that tripe because we don't accept cookies that remember we don't want to. Let me spell it out for you: If a site is serving ads, it's NOT a free service. If a site is mining user's info, it's NOT a free service. Yes it is unethical to claim a service is free when you are serving ads. It's called "lying".
31. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by interkin3tic · 2013-07-05 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  If everyone hears this gospel and follows it, then you're right. However, we all know what's going to happen. Ad blocking methods are going to increase, and YOU PERSONALLY viewing the unintrusive ads is going to be as effective as you pissing at the edge of the Sahara desert to make it green. Except for that metaphor to work, you'd have to get sunburned on your dick while doing it.
  
  Well, anyway, all you'd be doing is viewing annoying ads. The really annoying ones are still coming due to the tragedy of the commons, so you may as well block what ads you can.
32. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by gl4ss · 2013-07-05 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather get random ads.
  you see, what kind of random stimulation are you going to get from seeing the same ads all the fucking time?
  whole point of advertising gets kind of lost if nike is only advertising to fans of nike. if they're fans on facebook, da fuq do they need to be reminded that nike exists??
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
33. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by chromas · 2013-07-05 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  You've got to read the quote:
  
  they're going to move to more and more annoying and integrated ads, until the ads become indistinguishable from the content itself
  That's what shows their 'hate'. The 'good' users will have to see ads all over the place in an attempt to seep past the ad blockers, while a few people will update the ad blockers so the 'bad' users still won't see them. It's just like how legitimate software users have to put up with hardware dongles or whatever but 'pirates' don't because a couple guys somewhere will disable the checks each release.
34. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-07-05 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. People who use ad-supported media (like slashdot, for the most part) with ad-blockers turned on are just moochers and hypocrites.
  really? then why does slashdot give you a disable ads checkbox if you have an account?
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
35. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Hey dickhead, it's MY bandwidth, I'll decide what content comes down into it. Your ad infested websites can go die for all I care.
36. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by tqk · 2013-07-05 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  So block the annoying ads, let the non-annoying ones through, and don't destroy the internet.
  
  Hilarious. You crack me up. As if the Internet was nothing until the ad dollars showed up. Ha. Ha.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
37. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by tqk · 2013-07-05 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  But then there are just people against ads period. Must be a slow, lonely world in that room.
  It used to be if I wanted to be barked at by a carnival midway barker, I went to a carnival. Now, it's getting difficult to find the news in a newspaper or magazine for all the ads. It seems like half the vehicles driving down any street are hawking something. Ads are everywhere. Mad Magazine used to do jokes about people driving down the highway unable to see scenery for all the billboards. That's reality now. The labels on clothing used to be sewn inside. Now they're banner ads. Same with eyeglasses, shoes, computer cases, backpacks, furniture, ...
  Ads make me NOT want to buy your shit. If I want something, I'll find it without your offensive cacophany of screeching, irrelevant noise in my face. Burn in hell, marketroids.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
38. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by ultranova · 2013-07-05 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure why I should hate targeted ads. I actually see ads for things I'm interested in... instead of random stuff.
  
  Because the more you consume, the less you can save up, and the more dependent you are of maintaining your current job and/or the goodwill of your debtors, thus making you ever more helplessly bound and enslaved. Thus an ad should be considered an attempt to put another chain on you, an attack on your freedom, and a targeted ad a more effective attack.
  
  The tracking, ad infinitum, has always been going on, will always be going on.
  
  So has bubonic plague, but that's no reason to avoid taking antibiotics when you get it.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
39. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, and they pay for all that free content you like so much
40. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  The biggest issue I have is that they don't work very well for me. They might get that I'm interested in games, but they can't get what kind of games. I hate most first person shooters and pretty much every MMO I've ever given a chance. But despite that, the mere fact that I buy and read about games in other categories means I get adverts for those types because they're the most popular among gamers. I like some games, so the ads think I must be really excited about halo and call of duty. I like movies, so they can't wait to sell me dvds of transformers 3 or whatever horrible summer blockbuster is topping the lists a the time.
41. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-07-05 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely, and I'm always amazed when people get so upset every time advertisers learn to target better. I can only guess it has something to do with lack of willpower. People know hey are susceptible to advertising and get mad because they know they are going to get "tricked" out of their money, or something like that.
  So if we got rid of all ads a significant number of people would feel more comfortable. I'm feeling altruistic enough to help this happen.
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
42. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-07-05 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Trying to cover operating costs whilst providing users a free service != hate.
  Insisting on shoving ads down users' throats == hate
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
43. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Kergan · 2013-07-05 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, WTF people?
  On top of that, all these extensions to block ads are going to end up backfiring in a huge way. When sites start to lose significant amounts of money, they're going to move to more and more annoying and integrated ads, until the ads become indistinguishable from the content itself. That's just making the web worse for everyone.
  So block the annoying ads, let the non-annoying ones through, and don't destroy the internet.
  Meh. Too late. AdBlock Plus is already receiving sponsorships/bribes to let "quality" ads through:
  http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.horizont.at%2Fhome%2Fdetail%2Fgoogle-ist-geldgeber-von-adblock-plus.html&act=url
44. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-07-05 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  So block the annoying ads, let the non-annoying ones through, and don't destroy the internet.
  Hilarious. You crack me up. As if the Internet was nothing until the ad dollars showed up. Ha. Ha.
  And I thought that the internet was DESIGNED to be almost indestructable :)
  I remember the internet before the world wide web (ignore the size my ID) and can safely say that the overall quality of the web is inversely proportional to the number of ad dollars thrown at it.
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
45. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  You fail to understand it is never for your good but to heads up things like your insurance company when you search an illness.
46. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-06 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Google uses it, and because of that, any search you make will be completely tailored to you. That's a bad thing, because when you search for something, you usually want something out of the ordinary, something you yourself wouldn't have thought of.
  Because of that, I have to use Yahoo from time to time, because with Google the same crap would consistently end up front page. Feels like it's 2000 all over again.
  I have a fake FB account that I use, with very little, and very fake personal information. The ads I get shown, are so dissimilar to other places I visit on the web, it's hilarious. (I don't have a real FB account, hence the need for a fake one).
47. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by Ash-Fox · 2013-07-08 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Note: Not the original poster
  
  Ah... so it doesn't bother you that someone may be looking over your shoulder
  
  That tends to bother me because I don't like my personal space being violated to that extent.
  
  No, seriously, you really want true anonymity. You want privacy. You don't ever want to see a targeted advertisement.
  But that won't stop someone looking over my shoulder. Your solution doesn't solve the problem.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
48. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by mi · 2013-07-08 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I grew up in the USSR and have not become a Communist. I then moved to the US and ended up in the Northeastern part of it. In the twenty years here I have not become a Socialist (read Communist-light) either.
  In other words, I think, I'm quite resistant to brainwashing, thank you very much...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
49. Re:Targeted ads are better than untargeted ads by allo · 2013-07-08 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  no, they are not.
  An ads wants to make you buy stuff, which you did not want to buy before. Some ads may make you buy stuff you really wanted, but in a specific store. The stuff there will be more expensive, because they need to pay for the ads somehow. And if they got you to click an ad, the chances for a sale are higher than normal anyway. Do you remember the site, which gave appleusers higher prices? So much on the topic of targeted ads ...
Nice try but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:17 · Score: 0

EULA's can be changed at will. As soon as this kid releases his code it will be relegated to "not allowed" in a EULA any company that has back room deals with anyone. Hopefully open source projects have not sold their souls yet to the Man.
Most likely it will be disallowed by the big guys before his code is published.
*sigh*
1. Re:Nice try but... by NixieBunny · 2013-07-05 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  Rachel is a she.
  
  --
  The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
2. Re:Nice try but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  EULA's can be changed at will. As soon as this kid releases his code it will be relegated to "not allowed" in a EULA any company that has back room deals with anyone. Hopefully open source projects have not sold their souls yet to the Man.
  Most likely it will be disallowed by the big guys before his code is published.
  *sigh*
  What are you talking about?
  I don't ever sign an EULA to visit a web site - and my country has no law which makes the ToS of a website legally binding for all visitors.
  On my machine, maybe 3 programs contain an EULA and I could easily (but not comfortably) replace them by something without an EULA.
  Why worrying about open source selling out to the man: just fork it if they do.
  Why are you posting on /. anyway?
It's a cookie mixer by Animats · 2013-07-05 05:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'd thought of doing that as part of one of my browser add-ons, but it has problems. The general idea is that you send your cookies to a central site which sends them out to others to confuse tracking. As the article says, "The Vortex system will build a database of cookies gathered by players." So you've traded multiple limited data collection systems for one central one. There are a number of obvious ways that can backfire.
Just turn off third party cookies. Or run Abine's Do Not Track Me.
1. Re:It's a cookie mixer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  I'd thought of doing that as part of one of my browser add-ons, but it has problems. The general idea is that you send your cookies to a central site which sends them out to others to confuse tracking. As the article says, "The Vortex system will build a database of cookies gathered by players." So you've traded multiple limited data collection systems for one central one. There are a number of obvious ways that can backfire.
  Just turn off third party cookies. Or run Abine's Do Not Track Me.
  And guess how they'll, errr, monetize - yeah, monetize - that data....
2. Re:It's a cookie mixer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  I want a plugin that'll turn cookies being sent to all but the main URL that I'm visiting into "847345';drop table;" Little Cookie Tables I'd call it.
3. Re:It's a cookie mixer by Drewdad · 2013-07-05 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Just turn off third party cookies. Or run Abine's Do Not Track Me.
  The problem with that is they may be able to profile you based on your having cookies disabled.
  "This guy's a privacy freak, let's give him ads for browsing anonymously...."
4. Re:It's a cookie mixer by slashkitty · 2013-07-05 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds interesting in theory, but cookies are used all different sorts of ways. One the of more important is login and identification. If this game swaps login or other personalization cookies with another person you could loose your identity!
  
  --
  -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
5. Re:It's a cookie mixer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  The general idea is that you send your cookies to a central site which sends them out to others to confuse tracking. As the article says, "The Vortex system will build a database of cookies gathered by players."
  There are a number of obvious ways that can backfire.
  The most obvious being that there will only be one profile: Porn Browser.
  CAPTCHA = "inflate". That's what she said!
6. Re:It's a cookie mixer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think that command works without a table name. Although I suppose if the server would accept that, it would take "drop database" as well. Serious question, does the drop command accept wildcards?
7. Re:It's a cookie mixer by WhatAreYouDoingHere · 2013-07-05 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Serious question, does the drop command accept wildcards?
  Nope
  
  --
  "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
8. Re:It's a cookie mixer by hibiki_r · 2013-07-05 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  While in this case the answer happens to be right, using W3 schools as a reference for anything is like getting all your international news from Hugo Chavez's ghost.
9. Re:It's a cookie mixer by WhatAreYouDoingHere · 2013-07-05 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  While in this case the answer happens to be right, using W3 schools as a reference for anything is like getting all your international news from Hugo Chavez's ghost.
  I suppose you have a better international news source?
  
  --
  "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
I despise tentacle porn... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:20 · Score: 2, Funny

but my alternate identity can't get enough of it!
I don't get it by jtownatpunk.net · 2013-07-05 05:21 · Score: 1

Why are they pestering the user to be involved in the process? Just do it and don't bother me.
1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's a student project, so it has to have some bling.
It's a good day by Tifer · 2013-07-05 05:24 · Score: 2

When ad filters are on the offensive.
Not available for download. by blackicye · 2013-07-05 05:30 · Score: 1

Yeah I went looking for the plugin before reading the article. It's not available yet.
It's probably just a concept at the moment, and someone will probably code and release a plugin that does this or worse to advertisers before she releases hers in September.
B-b-but where's my free stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:31 · Score: 0

Says the typical Slashtard.
1. Re:B-b-but where's my free stuff? by tqk · 2013-07-05 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Says the typical Slashtard.
  Says the typical shallow as a pane of glass webmonkey. Go play on Facebook.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Why? by Darkness404 · 2013-07-05 05:32 · Score: 0

This is a cool proof of concept, but it seems a bit unneeded, after all, doesn't everyone block ads? I mean, aside from on my phone (although adblocking is enabled on my browser) I never see an ad.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Why? by Trepidity · 2013-07-05 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think most people block ads, unless you restrict "people" to tech-savvy people.
  On the other hand, most of the people who don't block ads will also not install this browser addon.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:Why? by wvmarle · 2013-07-05 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I don't browse on my phone, only play some games or use other apps.
  I see advertising when I happen to have wifi on (no mobile data) - and what I notice time and again is that the advertising is exclusively for other apps. No general products or brands are being advertised, only other apps, and those apps are either games or gambling related things.
  Which makes me wonder: is it really me? Or is it geographically different? Or do general advertisers really shun the mobile in-app advertising realm?
Define "better." by Valdrax · 2013-07-05 05:32 · Score: 1

Untargeted ads are easier to ignore and thus less distracting. I don't want to train my eyes to look over towards the ad section of a webpage. I'd rather get in for the stuff I visited for and then get out. It's hard enough in this day of ever-present ads and neuromarketing to keep attention where I want it.
Plus, assuming targeted ads actually work as designed, I don't want to be encouraged to consume stuff I wouldn't have consumed without the ads. Studies have shown that we have a limited reservoir of restraint from impulsive behavior. The more this reservoir is "drained" by resisting temptation, the more likely you are to give in later. You can increase this reservoir with practice, but there are simply limits. I'd rather avoid temptation and save my money.
The one exception to this is search engines, where I want results relevant to what I'm searching on. But you don't need to build a profile for that. You just need to give me tools to more narrowly specify my search and build more intelligent responses to that.

The tracking, ad infinitum, has always been going on, will always be going on.
I'd rather not be defeatist about that. The primary motivation of tracking is to better sell you stuff. If I'm not interested in buying, then I'm definitely not interested in paying that extra cost in privacy for "service" I don't want.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:Targeted ads are NOT better than untargeted ads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'll give you one reason: echo chamber. I don't particularly like seeing ads at all (yes, it's the price for "free" content); however, I like to broaden my perspective on the world. If I receive targeted ads for items that are of interest to me and a very small slice of society, I'm at terrible risk for mis-perceiving society at large. For example, I don't like (almost any) hip hop music. But I don't want to be denied the opportunity to be informed (via ads) that much of the rest of "western civilization" thinks it's great.
So yes, I want all my ads UN-targeted. If I need something unusual, I can bloody well find it for myself using The Google.
This doesn't even address the fact that the data accumulated to create targeted ads can (has, and will continue to be) misused for other purposes. For example,let's say your particular buying habits correlate with certain anti-social or unhealthy lifestyle choices, but that you don't have these particular negative attributes. A prospective employer or insurer might still use them to label you as a bad risk, and deny you a job or insurance policy.
Companies don't collect information about you for YOUR benefit.
Awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:38 · Score: 0

And I'll await the time one of these fake identities pulls up pr0n on Yahoo!
Enemy of the State by PopeRatzo · 2013-07-05 05:39 · Score: 0

How long before the student who designed this project is labeled a terrorist?
And anything that blocks ads or tracking will be categorized as a "munition" and made illegal to possess or use?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
This Sounds Awesome; Needs More Than Cookies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:40 · Score: 0

Cookies have gone out of vogue with many ad trackers nowadays. Machine "fingerprinting" using as much info (such as OS, browser, amount of RAM, what fonts are installed, etc) as can be gathered with embedded scripting to identify individuals as they surf is what all the "intelligent marketing" firms are up to.
Please help me, Obi Karma Whore! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:42 · Score: 0

Please note: It's Spartacus.
WTF does that mean?
And the Gp?
1. Re:Please help me, Obi Karma Whore! by ArcadeMan · 2013-07-05 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Spartacus Load Letter?
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So....it's Fake-Block by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:43 · Score: 0

George Michael (or George Maharis) would be proud
Human evolution could also work by Murdoch5 · 2013-07-05 05:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I would like to think in this day and age people are mature enough to ignore targeted ads.
1. Re:Human evolution could also work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  How can you resist clicking on this pair of tits?
2. Re:Human evolution could also work by wvmarle · 2013-07-05 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  If they ignore them, the ads are obviously irrelevant, and the targeting failed. If an ad is really relevant and useful for the user, they wouldn't be ignored.
3. Re:Human evolution could also work by Murdoch5 · 2013-07-05 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the problem is the users and not the ad companies. You can't keep blaming everyone else when you can't do something, if your weak your weak and deal with it, don't always cry for your mommy to come over and deal with it.
4. Re:Human evolution could also work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  TL;DR: Just start reading from the bottom upwards and stop as early as you wish.
  But apparently, they're STILL stupid enough (I'm looking right at you) to just treat the symptoms and only the symptoms.
  TFA's "solution" is as stupid as taking pain killers while *continuing to run against the wall, head first*.
  And your reply is as stupid as recommending that instead one should just ignore the pain.
  How about... I don't know... NOT BANGING YOUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL IN THE FIRST PLACE??
  Are you seriously both too lazy and too stupid to (not) do that?
  We have an age-old solution against third party tracking cookies / beacons: GHOSTERY.
  And for first party cookies: Generally disallow them for any site, except when you notice you actually need it for certain actually useful functionality. (Like state tracking.)
  And finally: Why the hell are you entering personal information at a site where you don't absolutely need to.
  So if you 1. absolutely need to enter personal information, 2. absolutely need first-party cookies (there's no such thing as a need for third party cookies, as it can all be handled on the server side), then just make sure you trust the site. Which includes making sure they don't use an ad-based "business model" (aka being fucking morons who don't have anything even valuable enough to ask a single cent for it).
  Aka: Common. fucking. sense.
  Conclusion: There is no problem. There is only complete and utter too-stupid-to-live stupidity. So wise up (at least above the level of common mold) or please put yourself out of your misery.
5. Re:Human evolution could also work by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-05 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's only the most minor of problems with targeted ads.
  1. Ad company builds a database on you, sells it to anyone willing to pay $0.00001/victim.
  2. You invite a friend round and the stupid targeted ads try to expose you as a pervert who is into diet pills and is looking for a dubious loan.
  3. Shopping sites show you higher prices because they think you have money, based on the profile of you they bought.
  4.Your health insurance premiums go up because your profile suggests you take drugs and enjoy using power tools.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:Human evolution could also work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  You used "useful" to describe a potential ad. Fail.
what it OUGHT to do... by swschrad · 2013-07-05 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

is toss one site back to another, so they are tossing ads back and forth, making it look like all the hits are coming from other advertisers. I would suspect eventually the hosting sites will end up blocking themselves, and all will be well in the Twitterverse.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
1. Re:what it OUGHT to do... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  Ever searched for something at Amazon.com, and then had lots of "targeted" ads show up from Amazon.com advertisers pushing that very thing you were just looking for on Amazon.com?
  I've thought that almost as good as this would be some distributed agent that just sat around 24x7 just randomly hitting websites, good and bad, enough so as to generate enough noise in the system for you.
  But then again, some people actually like the small ego stroke they get because Someone Is Paying Attention to what they're doing and giving them feedback (e.g., targeted ads).
won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 05:50 · Score: 0

It's a step in the arms race for sure, but the advertisers are better-armed.
There is tonnes of unique data attached to your movements on the internet. One example would be the time on your computer, which is inaccurate by a fixed amount.
At least if you let them use cookies you have an idea of who is tracking you.
How much will they pay her to keep schtum? by nickrjsmith · 2013-07-05 05:52 · Score: 1

oops
Kill advertisements? by tyrione · 2013-07-05 05:56 · Score: 1

Really? The bulk of advertisement revenue for profits is coming from the embedded world, not Web Browsing. More to the point, whether this person likes it or not they don't control the design models of WebKit, Blink, etc. This will not kill advertising.
We do it without cookies by russbutton · 2013-07-05 06:02 · Score: 1

I recently joined an internet advertising startup whose claim to fame is that their technology works without cookies tracking individuals. It really is creepy how you look at something on Amazon and you start seeing Amazon ads for that item on other sites you visit.

We're profitable so at least THIS company isn't going to lay me off any time soon.
Advertisers are profiling the wrong thing. by wvmarle · 2013-07-05 06:10 · Score: 1

I don't understand why advertisers are so eager to profile users. Really. Now with ABP I don't see many ads, largely because they're usually so obtrusive and irritating, but that's another story.
The advertiser's key mistake is that they try to target users. The only thing about a user they should target (to make ads useful) is geographic location. E.g. when I'm looking for restaurants, I'd be happy to see advertisements of restaurants near me. I'm looking for restaurants in Mongkok, show me ads of restaurants in Mongkok, not those in Central. Wasting my time.
Another thing: when reading /., I'm interested in IT related stuff. Show me IT related ads, and I may be interested in them. Don't show me football related ads just because I've been browsing a bunch of football sites before. Similarly, when browsing football sites, show me sports related ads, not IT related ads because I visit /. ten times daily.
Gender, age, etc - it all matters so much less. The web sites themselves tend to filter that out very much already, as many web sites target a very specific audience with an often quite narrow interest.
For example on /. you find males with high education, that are working in the IT field. On mylittlepony.com you find young girls that are in primary or maybe junior secondary school. On recipies.com you find desperate housewives. And if I, a fairly typical /. demographic, may visit mylittlepony.com then probably I'm looking for a present for my (imaginary) daughter, and may be very interested in promotions related to that toy. I'd be quite irritated to see the same IT related advertising I may call useful when placed on /..
As a side note: the original ads by Google tried to do just that: relevant ads, depending on the content of the page. Somehow though it never seemed to work well. I always get very relevant, and often useful, ads when doing searches - when I see those text ads in web pages they're often totally irrelevant. From my own campaigns I also got far higher click-through rates on the google.com main site, than on their "affiliate sites" or however they call it. As in >10 times higher rates.
1. Re:Advertisers are profiling the wrong thing. by jader3rd · 2013-07-05 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand why advertisers are so eager to profile users.
  Well, that's what advertisers used to do, back in the days when it was a regular discussion about how companies can make money by advertising online. When some guys at MS pitched to Steve Ballmer that they should switch to targeted ads instead of content related banner ads he didn't buy it. Then Google came along and targeted the user. Companies started paying Google all of the money they could scrape together because of the noticeably higher ROI when advertising is targeting the user. That resulting in all of the internet advertising dollars going to solutions which target the user.
2. Re:Advertisers are profiling the wrong thing. by wvmarle · 2013-07-05 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Google ads that I click most, and the Google ads of my campaigns that were clicked most (I haven't used ad campaigns for a few years now) are the CONTENT related ones. Just the ads that are placed next to search results, and targeting the search keywords entered by the user (i.e. content) and geographic area (related to the user's current IP address and browser's preferred language). I quite often search for things that are new to me, yet Google gives me the info I need (both in the form of ads and direct search results). That can't be a result of profiling.
  Ads posted at various non-search web sites I generally find useless and off-topic. Whether they are targeting my profile or the site's content I can't tell.
  The difference between Google and Microsoft, is that Google has the search engine, and that's the ultimate moment to place content related ads. People that search for a product are interested in that product there and then, so that's the people you have to target with advertisements of that product.
  Microsoft doesn't have this; they may resell ads for third-party sites but as I said they're not as effective as search engine ads. They think it may help to target users by profile, well I'm not convinced.
This kills ALL ads (& more)... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:10 · Score: 0

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
---
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
* They can do the same for you too...
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy added/better speed, security, reliability, & even "anonymity" to an extent as well)...
... apk
Targeted ads so off target by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 06:13 · Score: 0

Business paying for targeted ads is a joke. My dog was browsing websites for a cat nip, to fish for cats. Ads started appearing for cat beds, food, meds. What a joke, the dog was looking for a snack and didn't have that much saved up to spend.
This kid deserves the medal of freedom by davydagger · 2013-07-05 06:30 · Score: 2

well done good sir, This guy reserves the medal of freedom.
I just wish by HalAtWork · 2013-07-05 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I just wish there was a plugin that would scramble this stuff automatically. Take each tab and generate a random browser string, garbage "clicked from" info, random cookies to scan, random history, etc. for every link I click.

--
Twinstiq, game news
Better targeted than random... by Rational · 2013-07-05 07:25 · Score: 1

If I have to see ads at all, I'd sooner they be of stuff I may be interested in, to be honest.

--
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
1. Re:Better targeted than random... by Requiem18th · 2013-07-05 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Me onthe other hand, I don't mind seeing ads that much and if they help the site author I'm willing to endure them. What I don't like is business tracking us down and profiling us and potentially sharing this with government agencies. That's why I use Adblock, Ghostery, Privoxy and other tools. And why I don't bother much with Do-Not-Track me ideas.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
What about those of us who don't game? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 07:30 · Score: 0

I don't want to play any games, but I would be willing to use a browser add-on that continually creates fake identities, scrambled information, etc. to disrupt the ad systems, without any extra work on my part.
Is there anything like this available?
s/addictive/fun/ by Tooke · 2013-07-05 07:30 · Score: 1

Can we please stop describing games as being "addictive"?

--
Anybody want a peanut?
1. Re:s/addictive/fun/ by Bing+Tsher+E · 2013-07-05 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  It's a useful filter, so should stay in common usage.
  When you're looking around at the games in the Play Store or iTunes, quite a few games say 'the most addictive....' which identifies them as games probably not worth downloading since their developer/distributor has to rely on stale memes to market them.
Why you should hate being "targeted" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 07:45 · Score: 0

(As if it weren't self-evident.)
Targeting is achieved by monitoring your behavior and making conclusions about your motivations. The stated purpose of gathering this information is to use it to manipulate your behavior in a way that better serves someone elses interests.
You could certainly say "well if I am going to drink a cola, why not drink a brand that some inscrutable marketing software determines I will enjoy more!?". But what if you only want to drink a cola because the same marketing software has already hijacked your impulses? Maybe you would have been happy drinking a free and more healthful glass of water, and using time that you spend grudgingly "working out" to burn off the extra calories doing something you actually enjoy?
Then there are all the ancillary purposes that are pursued when your behavior is sold on to who-knows-who.
If you care about privacy and self-determination and/or don't assume that the hucksters of the world have your best interests at heart, you should not want to be targeted by anyone, for anything
Where is the link to vortex please? by cellurl · 2013-07-05 07:50 · Score: 1

I want to try it. Where is it? Link please...
Assuming they use cookies by NitWit005 · 2013-07-05 07:50 · Score: 1

A lot of ad platforms already have a non-cookie mechanism working. Storing hashes of user agent and IP address is common. You have to go through a proxy or otherwise change IP address for that not to work. It's easy to find services advertising this as a feature: http://www.ipfingerprint.com/we_dont_use_cookies.aspx The truth is that cookies aren't that great for tracking. People want to know your activity across browsers and devices. That requires using additional information like phone unique identifier (sent by apps), website logins, billing address fields, coupon usage, and so on. That information can be tied together to track you. You're not going to be able to prevent that kind of tracking by messing with cookies.
Developed by George Maharis and P-Hound by cervesaebraciator · 2013-07-05 07:57 · Score: 1

Oh, please call the software Fakeblock.
too interactive. by intermodal · 2013-07-05 08:04 · Score: 1

I just want to jack with the advertisers without any effort at all. though I don't see any reason to cease my current strategy of just blocking them.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
"Vortex isn't available publicly" by gilgongo · 2013-07-05 08:17 · Score: 1

From the article: "Vortex isn't available publicly or even in a closed beta form..."
As vapourwear goes, it would seem rather vapid then.

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
this is brilliant by MarkH · 2013-07-05 08:44 · Score: 1

don't hide from our data collection overlords just confuse the hell out of them.
Kinda what I do by Trax3001BBS · 2013-07-05 11:12 · Score: 1

I use this free service http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/ to generated an identity. I keep hitting
generate till I get a zip code that's close and use that info for whatever site.
An email address to that identity is also available (for a price) but I use www.spamgourmet.com for that.
Cookies are taken care of with a .bat file.
And of course a HOSTS file, I use APK to gather all the HOSTS files, combine them then make a HOSTS file from it's output
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
makes for one nice HOSTS file.
What can go wrong? by manu0601 · 2013-07-05 13:55 · Score: 1

At some point, someone will have session cookie for its job's intranet sent into the mixer...
There are ads on the net ? by speedlaw · 2013-07-05 15:48 · Score: 1

I ended up adding adblock, flashblock and noscript to all of my machines. Blame Club Med. I searched for a vacation online, and for the next two months, got endless ads for Club Med. "hat lady" became a joke in the house Dumped cookies, etc. Now I search vacations or other products on a netbook pre wiped and cookie dumped. I haven't seen a banner ad in weeks. Thank you Club Med...oh, I went there years back, had a great time....but the marketing has turned me off to your brand.
Re:Targeted ads are NOT better than untargeted ads by kermidge · 2013-07-05 22:57 · Score: 1

re echo chamber, a good, overlooked point. Too much customization restricts worldview, which I don't see as a good thing.
"It basically fucks up algorithims" by kmoser · 2013-07-06 05:02 · Score: 1

I would use it based on that quote alone. But if she really wants to fuck with algorithms, she should make it scramble cookies by updating them with random info.
We're waiting over at GitHub. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 02:32 · Score: 0

Community will take over. Still haven't concluded are we targets or products or are these synonyms ?
Need FB account? by mi · 2013-07-08 04:19 · Score: 1

I don't have a real FB account, hence the need for a fake one
That's a fairly bizarre statement and I can't help venturing off-topic. I, for one, do not have an FB account — neither fake nor real — and fail to see, why would anyone "need" one... Care to elaborate?

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.