Slashdot Mirror
When Opting Out of Ad Tracking Doesn't Opt You Out
jfruh writes "Privacy blogger Dan Tynan couldn't help but notice the ads targeting his web browsing for a plus-sized women's clothing store, not least because he's neither a woman nor plus-sized. But trying to figure out why those ads kept popping up in his browser led to some disturbing discoveries. He had opted out of targeted Google ads, and at first glance the ads seemed to come from Google — but digging deeper, he found that Google's DoubleClick was only the intermediary, which meant his opt-out didn't apply. And his opt-outs from other ad services seemed to have vanished."
I have difficulty seeing the author as a professional when he uses words like "porcine" to describe an overweight woman. Is that really necessary in a professional publication?
Opt-outs are a scam. They have been since the late 90s. Opting out just tells spammers that they hit a real e-mail address, and thus its value goes up. It also tells them one other important piece of information: You're willing to click on links that send you to random websites.
Anyone who tries to 'opt out' is an idiot, and anyone who suggests them as a solution to spam and advertising should be dragged into the street and stoned to death. There is only one solution: Get rid of all of it. The end. Stop your monetization of the web 2.0 synergizing cluster fuck of the internet... it survived just fine before you vultures descended on it. It will survive your demise as well.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I don't understand why the person writing this article would choose to jump through the advertiser's hoops to deal with this problem. Install Adblock and Ghostery or something similar and forget about it.
I don't respond to AC's.
I've seen beta.slashdot.org and was horrified. Once the "old" slashdot goes away, so will this nearly two-decade user.
Seriously, there are STILL people out there using browsers without ad blockers?! Are they also still using IE 6?
Hint: If you are using Windows 95 or NT 3.51 then SeaMonkey 1.1.19 and Adblock 0.5 or Adblock Plus 1.0.2 do a great job.
There is just no excuse.
Yep, lots of people on the internet say "but what about the revenue of the sites you use." It ignores that there's never going to be a mutual respect there, no matter how much you respect the source.
No , really ? I am not surprised. The ad industry torpedoed every instance of normal regulation and do not track, they are handling self regulation like robber barron, laughing all the way. There is only one option : the nuclear option, and it is adblocking. All of it. And if a web site does not want to show me anything because I block ads , well I can most probably live without that web site.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It is a serious problem to me. My point is that, in any capitalist society, you can expect advertisements to be present, and they will be as sleazy and manipulative as companies can get away with.
It's only evil when you get caught.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
So far in this discussion, hat we're seeking, I think, isn't the wholesale replacement of capitalism, but finding a way to limit one of the more socially damaging behaviors it encourages.
It's possible to find free-market capitalism based on imperfect ideas, believe it to contain flaws, and still not find any of the alternatives inherently superior.
And this is why I figuratively (and literally) flip off any ass hat who comes in bitching about adblockers whenever they come up.
Malware, black-hats, etc.. are actively hostile to us, our privacy, and our systems' security, and we take steps to mitigate the threat they pose.
Advertisers have proven, time and again, that they belong in the same category, and do so overtly (they don't even try to pretend otherwise). IMNSHO, to not mitigate them borders on negligence.