Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Atlas: the Platform For Advertisers To Track Your Movements
An anonymous reader writes In its most direct challenge to Google yet, Facebook plans to sell ads targeted to its 1.3 billion users when they are elsewhere on the Web. The company is rolling out an updated version of Atlas that will direct ads to people on websites and mobile apps. From the article: "The company said Atlas has been rebuilt 'from the ground up' to cater for today's marketing needs, such as 'reaching people across devices and bridging the gap between online impressions and offline purchases.'"
http://www.abine.com/index.htm...
I'm sure Facebook is diligently working to bypass this attempt of people to maintain their privacy, along with all others, but it's notably better than nothing.
Install noscripit, turn off all scripts. Go to a popular website. It probably won't work. Start allowing scripts. Eventually, the website should appear in all it's glorious tracky glory.
Now look at how many trackers you've enabled. Now look at how many are from facebook.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is why all of the browsers I don't use for Facebook do not accept cookies from Facebook, do not allow them to set cookies, and in a few cases do not even allow traffic to them.
The amount of embedded crap in every page you visit is mind-boggling.
Every company wants to link to Facebook and as a result, Facebook pretty much knows everywhere you go.
The only way I trust Facebook is in a heavily locked down browser, which isn't used for anything else.
And, even then, I wouldn't trust Facebook as far as I could throw Zuckerfuck off a cliff ... and then won't let me measure that distance so far.
If your browser doesn't have at least 3 privacy extensions, you're handing all of this information over to these clowns to collect your data and do targeted marketing.
Just deny them the information and the ability to meaningfully know anything about you.
I block every advertising and analytics company I can find ... and it's bad enough that Slashdot on this page as I type has scorecard research, google analytics, google ad services, and whatever the heck RPX now is. Fortunately, they're all blocked.
I miss the internet before all of the assholes who want to advertise, monetize, track, correlate, and cross reference. But I'm sure as hell not going to let them get any information I can block from them.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'm feeling pretty good about having quit Facebook. It's more difficult for them to track me if I'm not a participant.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
So, deleting my Facebook account isn't enough to get away from them. How long until we have plugins to block their newest tracking and spam network?
What was the name of that firefox addon that disables facebook (and others) when it is embedded in somebody else's page ? While still allowing you to use facebook.com. I forgot.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
The default for AdBlock Plus is to allow some of the well-behaved ads through, so that users who like to support their favourite sites can do so in an unobtrusive way. It's easy to change - there's a checkbox on the dialog when you click on Filter Preferences to allow / disallow this. It's a reasonable compromise, and if everyone used this to only allow ads that don't behave badly, advertisers and their ad distribution networks would have to make their ads behave better.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Depending which part of the planet you're in, most of your FB tracking attempts will come from one of the blocks below. Firewall them all to be safe.
31.13.24.0 - 31.13.31.255
31.13.24.0/21
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook Ireland Ltd
IE
31.13.64.0 - 31.13.127.255
31.13.64.0/18
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook Ireland Ltd
IE
66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
66.220.144.0/20
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3
69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
69.63.176.0/20
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3
69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
69.171.224.0/19
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3
74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
74.119.76.0/22
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3
103.4.96.0 - 103.4.99.255
103.4.96.0/22
FACEBOOK-SG
173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
173.252.64.0/18
AS32934
FACEBOOK-INC
204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255
204.15.20.0/22
Facebook, Inc.
THEFA-3
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
How anyone would connect to FB these days without running every privacy filter under the sun is just baffling to me. It's bad enough that FB tracks everything you do when you're using the app. But now they want to track everything out do OUTSIDE the app as well? No thanks.
I read with interest about new sites like this --> https://ello.co/beta-public-pr...
Ok...it's still in Beta, and it's invitation only so far, and the functionality is pretty sparse. But for people that just want to connect with friends without having every single movement tracked (even after they exit the application), Ello holds some promise.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
Good. Let the dinosaurs die in peace.
Eat the rich.
Just out of curiosity, what's your ideal theoretical end-game once that happens? How exactly would people pay for servers, bandwidth, IT workers, content creators, site designers, site developers, electricity, the accounts payable and receivable person, the backup service, and the janitor?
Would you prefer to have all content be pay content, with pay-per-click or subscription schemes for all of the stuff you want?
Should advertising be so closely intertwined with the content that it's basically an infomercial? (Hope you love slashvertisements. They'll make up most of the feed.)
Should all free content be created and hosted by companies that have other successful businesses, and operate some website just for funsies?
Should all free content be donation driven, even though that barely works for an organization as visible as Wikipedia?
Should all free content be like archive.org and shoot for grant funding? That would significantly change the landscape of the free content out there...
Should all free content be amateur people hosting their own servers, hoping that it doesn't get so popular that they will have to pay a zillion dollars for their bandwidth charges?
How does that actually work, in the real world, where it costs real money to operate websites?
Atlas' website kindly lists all of the companies currently using Atlas. I'm pleased, because now I have a much more complete list of which services to completely avoid.
The default for AdBlock Plus is to allow some of the well-behaved ads through
I use the combination of NoScript and hosts file blocking rather than AdBlock Plus, so forgive my ignorance here... but what does the AdBlock Plus people consider "well-behaved"? For me, it would mean ads that engage in no tracking whatsoever.
if everyone used this to only allow ads that don't behave badly, advertisers and their ad distribution networks would have to make their ads behave better.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
Again, what is "well-behaved"? I can't tell which is which without analyzing network traffic to see which ads are reporting on me, so I must treat all ads as ill-behaved as a matter of self-protection, and block them all. Period. Without exception.
I simply pay money directly to sites I value, when they provide a means to do so. If they don't provide a means, then too bad, that's their loss.
Advertising would be OK if it weren't so intrusive (tracking counts as intrusive) and/or obnoxious. That people loathe online advertising is because advertisers have behaved so incredibly badly. They've dug their own grave here.
I am also old enough to remember when the internet had very little advertising. Almost all services were just free outright (mostly run on a hobbyist basis or as a sideline to an established business or educational institution) or you paid money. There was no dearth of content in those days. In fact, by many measures, the content was far superior to what we have now.
Advertising is 100% optional. Sites use it because it's convenient, not because it's necessary.
privacy... concerns... facebook...
Swap these words around for a well-worn Slashdot article (bonus if you score two hits in a day)
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Today's list is here. Just look for all lines starting with an exclamation mark - they'll tell you the intent of the following lines.
Of course, you're free to edit it to your preferences and restart the browser.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I don't want ads. Therefore I'm not accepting them. I don't typically go around allowing people to tack additional nonsense onto the things I want. That's why my computer isn't loaded down with toolbars and dodgy search providers.
I'd actually be pretty happy to pay a small subscription to websites that I use all the time, and that seem to be worth it. Of course, there are a lot of websites that would die very quickly without advertising, and I don't object to that at all. They can go, and that is fine.
I think a reasonable subscription to a website I really like would be something like a $1 to $1.50 a month. If enough people are paying, that can easily cover the costs.
Of course I'd rather have those websites supported by voluntary donations. Lets not pretend that it doesn't work, just because Wikipedia are hopelessly greedy and over-ambitious. For many websites it can work fine. I know at least one for which it has worked for more than a decade.
I'm old enough to remember that too. I feel as though I may remember it differently than you do, though. In no way would I describe the content back then as superior. I would describe the primary content which we have now on the good websites as in every way a desirable evolution. Little things like advertising and malware don't detract from that, and I don't necessarily find the commercial content on the web a problem, as long as non-commercial content is also there. I'd be really glad to see a return to the days without advertising though. I can afford to pay for the content I want, if it is priced reasonably. Then there's the fact that some content is there because the provider wants you to see it. They won't seek payment for that.
Why not just go to their site. Or if you install it, you can look at the list of "nice rules".
Today's list is here.
I can't find where they define what constitutes a "well-behaved" site, but from the list you pointed me to, it's clear they we tremendously disagree about who is well-behaved.
My ideal endgame is an ad-free world, but that's probably a utopian dream. A little while a go, there was an article about how much each Internet user would have to pay on a yearly basis for all ads, tracking cookes etc. to be eliminated. It was only a couple hundred dollars, I would gladly pay that to be completely free from ads online.
If advertising on a site starts getting too intrusive or annoying, I stop using that site, simple as that. Mind you, they'd have to get through Adblock, Privacy Badger, Disconnect, Noscript and Flashblock first. I see more than enough ads in the real world despite throwing my TV away years ago. It's my web browser and my eyes, I choose what I want to see.
I subscribe to a number of sites already, I don't see the problem with charging a fair amount for your services. Paying customers expect higher quality and are generally much better at giving feedback to site operators, a mutually beneficial setup. I also pay for services like Lastpass and Xmarks because while they offer something I could implement myself using Keypass, Google Drive and a host of plugins for my browsers, they make the whole process streamlined and easy to work with.
Eat the rich.
So just click on the "block all" option. Is that so hard?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's not hard at all, but it's even easier is to just use different methods that better fit my needs (and don't require further configuration out of the box just to plug holes intentionally built into the system.)
I wasn't criticizing AdBlock Plus, you know. I was just asking how it worked to determine fitness for purpose. I wanted to know what they considered "well-behaved". I still don't know, but I've learned enough to know that they and I disagree on the definition, since they include many badly-behaved sites on their well-behaved list.
Would it be considered a contribution to say that I'm not comfortable with this? Would it be considered to detract if I said that I don't have a Facebook account for a reason? I don't like them, I don't agree with their ethics, I don't want them to be a part of my life, and they're damn bound and determined to force their way in anyway.