Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Issues New Rules for Native Advertising on the Internet (blockadblock.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the goodbye-ads dept.

popo writes: Native Advertising, or advertorial content that's camouflaged to mimic a site's original content is all the rage among web publishers these days particularly as ad-blocking takes a bigger and bigger bite out of traditional web-advertising revenues. Well the FTC reiterated its position on native ads and may have just slammed the door shut on this "alternative" form of online advertising. The verdict: If it's not clearly marked "advertising", it may be considered misleading. And by misleading, the FTC means illegal. Of course, from an adblocking perspective, once you clearly indicate something is an ad — you make it all the more easy to block. Which defeats one of the primary goals of native ads to begin with.

120 comments

  1. You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever will I do to sell my valuable products now?

    1. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to make an anonymous recommendation, then I realized that, in addition to being blatantly illegal, my idea would be easy to get away with, pretty cheap, is practiced by few (if any) advertisers, and would result in advertising campaigns which are highly visible to the target audience, non-blockable, and mostly undetected by certain unwary hosts.

      I don't really want that, so this anonymous post was shot down...

    2. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I personally, consciously support advertising because I recognize the the value from both the perspective of the advertiser and the website. However I still use adblock because the way these ads work is just downright annoying, but, I leave the acceptable ads option turned on to enable the ones that aren't.

      Consider the perspective of the sponsor: When you have a new product you're trying to sell, you need a way to communicate with your customer that it is in fact available for them to buy. Take something you obviously use for example: A personal computer. Now, while you yourself might be well informed about the market and build your own, the vast majority of any given business's potential customers aren't. Advertising is how you reach them.

      And then of course, the perspective of the website: They pay actual people actual money to write their content. That money doesn't come in when people don't pay to view it, but it DOES have to come from somewhere. Thus, advertising works suitably.

      If some websites are getting tired of adblock, then instead of using anti-adblock scripts (which people create filters to work around these all the time, see the adblock forum) they might try doing the sensible thing and stop using assfucking annoying ads. Either that or if the acceptable ads don't pay enough, then show the regular annoying ads to people who don't use adblock and show acceptable ads to adblock users. Either that or they get nothing at all from adblock users who will either simply opt for a competitor site that has similar content or just find a way to circumvent their anti-adblock script.

      Even Google, who is in many respects the king of internet advertising and likely gains the most from it, is trying to get the ad industry to stop with these crap tactics.

    3. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Consider the perspective of the sponsor: When you have a new product you're trying to sell, you need a way to communicate with your customer that it is in fact available for them to buy.

      That is why God created search engines. If you really have something to sell, then advertising on a random site is a piss poor way to get PAYING customers. In fact, putting advertising on a site is a sure way to piss people off and in some cases make them totally against whatever you are trying to sell.

      And then of course, the perspective of the website: They pay actual people actual money to write their content. That money doesn't come in when people don't pay to view it, but it DOES have to come from somewhere. Thus, advertising works suitably.

      Horseshit. You are totally ignoring that other metric they use to get money... Namely investors. They all love to tout the number of users they have in their financial reports (a number usually inflated) and use that to gain investors. If the site has value, they will have investors. If their content is really all that valuable then put it behind a paywall. We will then see just how valuable it is. But advertising on a website isn't at all the answer and in fact pisses people off. Even you are proclaiming that you use an ad blocker because of the risk to your security and the annoyance advertising causes. So don't feed me this shit of it being their only way to get money.

      Bottom line, I am under no obligation to allow anything on my computer that I don't specifically want there with advertising being the top thing I don't allow. If a site doesn't like that then they can very well put it behind a paywall and I will move on.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    4. Re: You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that those investors invest due to the possible ad revenue? Hence why the site brags about it's number of users.

    5. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search engines find the most popular content. If you have a new product or service, nobody is going to be linking to it or talking about it, unless you're connected to an existing popular product. Your plan would practically eliminate any new or small businesses starting up, because the time necessary to attract enough eyeballs would be years. With advertising, you can kickstart it if you have some money up front.

      Yes, there are loads of problems with online advertising. That doesn't make all advertising bad.

    6. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

      That is why God created search engines.

      Uh...You mean like the 1990's era search engines that rank results based on keywords? Who are you, Rip Van Winkle? With modern search engines you aren't likely to be found that way as they tend to rank pages based on how well people like them. If nobody hears about your product to begin with, then how are they going to like it?

      Horseshit. You are totally ignoring that other metric they use to get money... Namely investors.

      Are you dumb, or high? I can't tell. If none of the above, then I'm sorry, but I can't help you, nor can anybody else for that matter.

    7. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The best advertising is positive, trustworthy reviews. Everyone knows this, the problem is that many companies are trying to polish a turd. Most irritating advertising is only necessary if your product sucks.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally, consciously support advertising

      Stopped reading here, since the post is clearly a native advertising ad advocating advertising, and illegal under the new FTC rules.

    9. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as malicious ads continue to be tolerated, I won't tolerate ads.

    10. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I personally, consciously do not support advertising even though I recognize the reason from both the perspective of the advertiser and the website.

      They do not defend me, so I see no reason to defend them. Block it all, I say. If that means that 99% of the sites will close, so be it.

      People are so bombarded by ads that they thing a small amount is ok. As if you are defending the bully and say a slap in the face is 'not that bad'. It is.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The web sites serving ads don't even know if the ads are annoying. It's all handled by a third party and he website owner fully intends to sit back passively and wait for the money to roll in. They're too busy writing their useless blog to actually pay attention. No real newspaper or television channel would ever use an advertisement that none of the staff has viewed first, yet that is the standard practice on the internet. The web site owners don't do the necessary work to decide what sorts of ads might be relevant to their viewers, they let Google figure that part out.

      It's well past he absurdity stage. Youtube required me to watch part of a movie preview first before it let me see the video I wanted, even though that video was a movie preview (this actually happened). Imagine a classic rock radio station playing ads for country music because some algorithm decided that the listener appears to have an interest in music.

      The whole attitude that someone "deserves" to be paid because of minimal effort spent creating the content is absurd. No one ever deserves anything, you have to work for it. If the money doesn't come in then find a new job.

    12. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Mandrel · · Score: 2

      Consider the perspective of the sponsor: When you have a new product you're trying to sell, you need a way to communicate with your customer that it is in fact available for them to buy. Take something you obviously use for example: A personal computer. Now, while you yourself might be well informed about the market and build your own, the vast majority of any given business's potential customers aren't. Advertising is how you reach them.

      Yes, even though advertising is intrinsically bad because it spins, we're a long way from a nirvana where independent editorial is that's perfectly informed about both the market and each person's needs is always affordably available, and where no vendor tries to get an artificial leg-up by advertising anyway. But if we're going to have advertising, there's plenty of better forms of it than paid placements in and around other media. Company websites and point-of-sale for example.

      To cover the situation where a start-up is finding it hard to get coverage, I'd support (disclosed) payments that encourage publishers to review or otherwise write about products in their own words. This is much better than a foreign or native ad, where the payment gives the advertiser the right to their own spin.

      And then of course, the perspective of the website: They pay actual people actual money to write their content. That money doesn't come in when people don't pay to view it, but it DOES have to come from somewhere. Thus, advertising works suitably.

      Advertising is working more and more poorly for information sources. The alternative is to better capture the value that the content gives the users. Direct charging is only one way.

    13. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      If some websites are getting tired of adblock, then instead of using anti-adblock scripts (which people create filters to work around these all the time, see the adblock forum) they might try doing the sensible thing and stop using assfucking annoying ads. Either that or if the acceptable ads don't pay enough, then show the regular annoying ads to people who don't use adblock and show acceptable ads to adblock users. Either that or they get nothing at all from adblock users who will either simply opt for a competitor site that has similar content or just find a way to circumvent their anti-adblock script.

      My favorite sites do just that. Their ads are unobtrusive and I don't block them because I value their content. They also sell their own branded items as well as offer a voluntary donation program to help keep the site free. As a result, I get to enjoy great content for free; although I do make donations as well.

      I understand and agree with the argument that I should decide what gets displayed on my computer; however that also applies to the website owner who gets to decide under what terms the site's material will be provided. If they chose to not allow adblocker users to view content then that's their right. What I find hypocritical is people who seem to think they have a right to circumvent anti-adblocking because they want the content but don't want it on the terms offered; any of them no doubt are the first to whine when someone finds a way around their precious scripts. If you don't like the ads, avoid the site. It's that simple.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    14. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Either that or if the acceptable ads don't pay enough, then show the regular annoying ads to people who don't use adblock and show acceptable ads to adblock users

      Um, if they could detect people who used adblock and customise content for them, many sites would just block those users outright rather than put up with the complexity of two ways to manage ads. And then the adblock guys would see that as an "attack" and fix it.

      Advertising seems to currently heading down through a death cycle just like it was at the start of the 2000's until AdSense came along. I don't see text ads all that often these days, it's all massive animated-reveal video ads. Between that and the stupid EU cookie warnings the web is killing itself, using it is like hacking through a jungle filled with vines and mosquitos in the search for great content. I don't use adblock and never have because viewing the website as the owners intended it is a part of the social contract - I get their content for free and in return, I agree to their terms. But that doesn't mean I like it.

      The risk is that these issues will result in someone producing a much better platform than the web, but that's proprietary (though I guess that the web is now entirely driven by Google/Microsoft/Mozilla but Mozilla is dying, a single big company instead of three wouldn't be a huge difference). If it had some sort of monetisation or micropayments built in, along with ways to reduce costs, that could pose a big competitive challenge.

      Alternatively, a search engine that ranked pages partly by how much advertising they had, would also be something that could pose a challenge to Google.

    15. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that is rich. So the investors invest because of what? You realize that an investment is basically saying, here's some money now with the expectation that I'll get that money plus more back later? If the site isn't allowed to make money except via investors, why the fuck would the investor give the site money?

    16. Re: You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by CockMonster · · Score: 1

      You have no fscking ida what you're talking about

    17. Re: You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by CockMonster · · Score: 1

      This is completely false. Publishers get to control every aspect of the types and behaviour of ads they allow on their sites, in real-time.

    18. Re: You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So this means they just don't care?

    19. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by sribe · · Score: 1

      Consider the perspective of the sponsor:... And then of course, the perspective of the website:...

      Hell, consider the perspective of the reasonable user. I don't mind at all non-obtrusive ads that don't screw up my browsing with too much data down, or burning CPU cycles with JavaScript, or blocking the main content. I find that a very few sites I visit actually have ads like that, which sometimes are for something I want to check out, and actually get clicked. But intrusive ads, not only do I not click them, I quit going to the site entirely--I have *never* found a site that I needed badly enough to put up with that crap.

      When CNN went over the top with autoplay videos and giant animated ads that push the content out of the way or cover it, I went to the Washington Post, and found that I liked it much more--so much more that I'm probably going to subscribe after the holidays.

    20. Re:You mean I can't pretend my content is real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No real newspaper or television channel would ever use an advertisement that none of the staff has viewed first, yet that is the standard practice on the internet.

      Clearly you haven't been to cbs.com or hulu.com which is owned and operated by NBC. I don't think anyone is reviewing there.

  2. missing tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

  3. And This Will Last... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right up until an exception gets slipped into the back third of several thousands of pages of things on a popular bill in the Senate.

    1. Re:And This Will Last... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 2

      Isn't congressional oversight great?

    2. Re:And This Will Last... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well this is actually something that's pretty common around the world already...

      like, it has to be obvious to the reader in print media if it is a total advertisement or not...

      of course plenty of (hobby, special) magazines especially tend to be pretty sketchy about this.

      same goes for games media, car media etc portions that depend on publishers/manufacturers giving them free access to products in exchange of positive review pumping.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  4. I guess this doesn't bar product placement though by istartedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess this won't bar product placement though. What distinguishes between "placement" and "native ads" anyway? Placement has gotten pretty ridiculous in some media. You know, I used to enjoy the Tonight Show monologue, right up through Leno. Come to think of it, even Leno did placements with his "products that shouldn't merge" routine; but at least it was funny. Sort of. Now I play a game with the Tonight Show and some of the other late night shows. When the first product placement appears, I turn the TV off and go to bed. Very often I fail to make it through the entire monologue.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  5. Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work in the advertising industry. Despite all the buzz around them and the dumb marketing nonsense, "native" ads had abysmal click-through rate, engagement, and literally negative brand metric. Turns out, users really really dislike being tricked into thinking an ad is actual page content, and brands are starting to get results back that show this. High end clients have specifically eliminated native advertisement from their purchased inventory.

    The rules still need to be in place for the crap-tier networks, but chances are those are going to be based in eastern europe anyway and thus not subject to FTC rules at all.

    1. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Arstechnica has started using native ads it seems. The problem is the articles are obviously paid product placements that it just made me quit reading all of Arstechnica.

    2. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you. You've done yourself a gigantic favor by leaving there. Arseholetechnica's the home of losers online. Everyone knows it.

    3. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      The only reason why this has been happening in the first place is because Gamergate started a campaign against undisclosed native advertising last year. The whole idea was going after clickbait sites by hurting their bottom line, and it seems to be working very well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by bmo · · Score: 2

      >High end clients have specifically eliminated native advertisement from their purchased inventory.

      Motley Fool investor advertorials are especially egregious. The ones pushed on facebook are offensive beyond words. I've blackholed MF itself. Forever.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you die from cancer. Really soon. And I hope it's painful.

      Not cool. At all.

    6. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      A contrary experience with Native Advertising in this comment. I wonder if that's because you're doing things differently, or just have a different audience demographic.

    7. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Way go over sell the importance of gamer gate. Undisclosed advertising has been a problem and has attracted regulations for decades. This is just one more in a 60 year old battle between advertisers wanting to trick viewers and the government trying to keep them honest to promote fair trade.

      This would have happened with or without gamer gate, and I don't gamer gate had any notable effect.

      Well let's see, you've provided a link. I'm sure that you're being ethical and providing a link to a nice, unbiased source, rather than something written by gaters themselves. The latter would be deeply unethical and therefore against everything gaters have ever done (excluding all the stuff they made up and the rape and death threats that is).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Way go over sell the importance of gamer gate. Undisclosed advertising has been a problem and has attracted regulations for decades.

      I'm sure that's why it's suddenly all happened at once and the FTC has come out in force against it right? If it would have happened without gamergate, then I'm sure you can prove that they if they hadn't engaged in said campaign then it would have happened eventually as well.

      Well let's see, you've provided a link. I'm sure that you're being ethical and providing a link to a nice, unbiased source, rather than something written by gaters themselves. The latter would be deeply unethical and therefore against everything gaters have ever done (excluding all the stuff they made up and the rape and death threats that is).

      So like many people, you make the usual "rape/death threats/bs" I'm sure you've actually got proof of that, you know unlike the mass number of pedophiles in anti-GG or the ones that are actively doxing people, trying to get individuals fired from their workplace and in some cases have been trolls so epic that they ran with multiple identities and wrote for sites like the guardian, daily kos, and so on. And one can't forget some of the other anti-GG folks who are out there, trying to get video games pulled because it doesn't fit with their ideology, or the doxing of individuals operating a charity for women to boot.

      One can't forget the anti-GG people either who wished to use chemical warfare to kill pro-GG folks, or the others who claimed the GG is "worse than ISIS" and "actual terrorists." Can't forget the new stuff either, like the claims that GG is so irrelevant that they call bomb threats in on themselves. Or the one's who claim they 'left home because of threats' but were still there to give interviews, or the ones who suddenly "left home because of threats" but really were leaving to go on vacation. Strange that people can't find police reports for those either...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I'm sure that's why it's suddenly all happened at once and the FTC has come out in force against it right? If it would have happened without gamergate, then I'm sure you can prove that they if they hadn't engaged in said campaign then it would have happened eventually as well.

      Correlation is not causation. The onus is on you to prove that the gaters had any effect on the FTC. The underlying cause (the rise of so-called native ads on the internet) is clearly the cause for both of these things. What is not clear is that the gaters had any effect on the FTC.

      As for if it would have happened eventually---almost certainly. After all, there have been regulations on the books for years and years making it illegal to not declare the ads presence properly. IOW it already happened years before gamergate existed, some skeezballs have found a "loophole" and the FTC is closing it. ...

      And on to your other point...

      Ah yes the "they made rape threats so it's OK that we made rape threats".

      How very "ethical" of you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hate to be the voice of reason here, seeing as the entire point of being an AC is to fan the flames and all, but I believe what the parent is trying to say is that the fact that neither side of this particular culture war is blameless. Trying to discredit one side based on the actions of radicals within means that both sides must be discredited, because they both have engaged in the exact same, morally bankrupt and reprehensible tactics. But I'm just an AC, so what do I know.

    11. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Correlation is not causation. The onus is on you to prove that the gaters had any effect on the FTC. The underlying cause (the rise of so-called native ads on the internet) is clearly the cause for both of these things. What is not clear is that the gaters had any effect on the FTC.

      I did, you said it doesn't count. The documentation stating that it was the op in question was the main reason that the FTC turned around and updated the rules doesn't seem to count for you.

      Of course one must remember that the media has had it out for GG since day one, unlike say...BLM. After all, a corrupt media that lives on clickbait has has an enemy in GG, especially an enemy that exposes their clickbait and unethical practices. Ever wonder why so many sites that survive on clickbait banned all discussion of it?

      And on to your other point...

      Ah yes the "they made rape threats so it's OK that we made rape threats".

      How very "ethical" of you.

      We're talking about ethics now? Well I'm still waiting for you to show that proof that you were talking about how GGers did those rape/death threats/doxing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I did, you said it doesn't count. The documentation stating that it was the op in question was the main reason that the FTC turned around and updated the rules doesn't seem to count for you.

      A bunch of people identifying with a cause founded on a lie telling me they've done something good is not evidence unless you've drowned in their KoolAid already.

      Why on earth should I believe them?

      Of course one must remember that the media has had it out for GG since day one,

      Day one of gg was ethically spreading lies about Quinn because if ethics apparently. Those alleged reviews never existed.

      Given the first event was doxxing, rape and death threats over someone who didn't do anything and the "movement" snow balled from there, why should the media take them seriously. Also rape, death threats aren't ethical, and so some group trying to take the moral high ground while making them is mental, no matter what they perceive the other "side" to be doing.

      We're talking about ethics now? Well I'm still waiting for you to show that proof that you were talking about how GGers did those rape/death threats/doxing.

      Ah yes, Zoe Quinn doxxed herself to discredit them before they even started their movement. Is they no enormity that the anti gg crowd won't stoop to?

      Merry Xmas!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      A bunch of people identifying with a cause founded on a lie telling me they've done something good is not evidence unless you've drowned in their KoolAid already.

      Why on earth should I believe them?

      What lie would that be? And it's not them telling you that, it would be the information that was conveyed by the FTC telling you that. Unless of course you couldn't be bothered to read it.

      Day one of gg was ethically spreading lies about Quinn because if ethics apparently. Those alleged reviews never existed.

      Given the first event was doxxing, rape and death threats over someone who didn't do anything and the "movement" snow balled from there, why should the media take them seriously. Also rape, death threats aren't ethical, and so some group trying to take the moral high ground while making them is mental, no matter what they perceive the other "side" to be doing.

      Since GG never said that there were reviews, rather she got preferential treatment which is true. Remember, if you're banging a journalist and they suddenly write something about what you're making that *is* unethical. If that same journalist is reviewing/writing/offering content for your game, that's also unethical. If you're dating that person and they write about it, it's also unethical. If you're paying for their hotel rooms, that again is also unethical. Note that her and grayson were involved in all of those. I can't figure out after a year why people still repeat that it was for reviews. And so I'm still waiting for these death and rape threats that you still have failed to actually show linked to GG. Want another example of said preferential treatment? Look up Anna Anthropy, I can think of several more including Tyler Wilde who had all of his articles on ubisoft products deleted because he was shacked up with a Ubisoft PR rep. That's unethical too, it's not rocket surgery.

      Ah yes, Zoe Quinn doxxed herself to discredit them before they even started their movement. Is they no enormity that the anti gg crowd won't stoop to?

      Which part would that be? The part where she still had access to her tumblr account, but there was dox being posted at the same time? Or the part where she was caught on 8chan doxing herself. Or how about when she was doxing people on wizardchan, you know the board that was for depressed virgins over 30..who are basically friendless, fat, and alone. Very progressive. Just like when she tried to shut down TFYC's charity to get more women into games development.

      And yep, have a Merry Christmas, happy New Year to boot.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Good - but it was going to happen anyway by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Since GG never said that there were reviews,

      Tell me, my man, if GG never called it reviews, then why did you, yourself refer it to as a review right here, in your very own words?

      http://developers.slashdot.org...

      Now I appear to have caught you either in a lie or an impressive case of self delusion.

      Your post reminded me of this:

      http://d1o2xrel38nv1n.cloudfro...

      Oh yes I'm sure she doxxed herself. I searched for "dox" in the wall of text you linked to. Not present.

      I like how you're bringing alleged events that happened after gamer gate broke as an excuse for bad behaviour when gamergate broke. "Zoe Quinn did something bad in the future so let's harass her now".

      That's so astonishingly ethical I don't even...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Re:Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You want a fucking civil war??? That's what you will get if you get Trump impeached!!!!! Trump has the people behind him, congress will be on the wrong side of history if they try to impeach Trump.

  7. Every site should be payable by PineGreen · · Score: 2

    I know how it should be: regulator should force every commercial media/service website to offer you a paid adless trackless version. For example, I should be able to choose between paying $10 a month and getting no ads and no tracking from google or pay 0 and get both. If I think that is not worth $10, they can bombast me any way they want with ads and play the arms race no matter how nasty they want. I think it is fair and it would show the clear value of targetted ads.

    1. Re:Every site should be payable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know how it should be:

      Oh fuck you. It already IS as it should be. People are free to serve ads and track activity, and people are free to block ads and trackers. Yes there will always be an arms race. Yes, some sites will not be able to survive without the income. Let those sites die. "Nature abhors a vacuum" and replacements will fill the void.

    2. Re:Every site should be payable by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      "That's a nice data cap you've got there, it would be a real shame if anything happened to it."

    3. Re:Every site should be payable by pepty · · Score: 1

      What would be really interesting: a subscription model where you can choose ads or choose to pay, but set so that the price for a subscription varies continuously to ensure that 50% of new subscribers choose to pay and 50% choose to view ads. Now the site can track exactly how annoying its ads are.

    4. Re:Every site should be payable by saward · · Score: 1

      Check out our service Webpass.io, which is a step towards what you're asking for, and have a look at our privacy policy if you please. Tracking is one of my greatest concerns with advertising.

    5. Re:Every site should be payable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know how it should be: regulator should force every commercial media/service website to offer you a paid adless trackless version.

      It already is that way, as a consequence of fundamental rights arising under and protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. All advertising must be opt-in, and the government can not grant legal monopolies such as copyright or patent contrary to this, which bars copyright holders from only making material protected by copyright available with ads. But the US legal profession routinely ignores its obligations under the Bill of Rights, because they make more money from a screwed up legal system then from a rational one. It's especially easy to ignore rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments, even though those are some of the most important rights, such as the right to ethical practice of law.

  8. Gee, I wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Native Advertising, or advertorial content that's camouflaged to mimic a site's original content is all the rage among web publishers these days particularly as ad-blocking takes a bigger and bigger bite out of traditional web-advertising revenues

    I wonder why that is. Maybe if you weren't trying to trick people with exactly this type of crap, along with the other stuff like trying to collect data, install various undesired monitoring programs, annoy us with intrusive resource eating obnoxious ads, ect., then we wouldn't have to block you greedy assholes. Personally, I don't mind seeing an ad on a site to support the sites I visit, but the advertisers got greedy and overstepped their welcome bounds. Does this make advertisers unhappy that they can't jerk people around for a profit? Too bad, don't care, blocked.

  9. The FTC banned native advertising and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You won't believe what they did next!

  10. Some Outlets Only Learn the Hard Way by Kunedog · · Score: 0

    Note that when Gamergate happened, it took several months and the threat of FTC involvement (in response to direct GG pressure) to force Gawker to change its tune and start updating old articles with disclosures. So this is good news.

  11. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course it won't, nor should it. There are two major kinds of placement (to me). There is version were the product is just being used in the course of the show. Character has to have a vehicle, phone, computer, etc. This is no problem. Then there is the kind where scenes are written just for the product. The (unnecessary) car chase that ends with a zoom on the logo, the beer bottle set down right in front of the camera. That kind will make me find another show.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. Anti-adblock site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Note that the article URL, blockadblock dot com, is that of some sort of anti-adblock piranha (cf. https://github.com/sitexw/Bloc...) so you might want to think twice before clicking it.

  14. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly.

    Tons of our so-called "journalism" is bought and paid for.

    Is FOX News one giant political advertisement for the Republican party? Should it be stated as thus? Or is it misleading advertising?

    Same thing goes for movie reviews, product reviews, etc.

    Journalism sold out a long time ago.

    Native advertising is just admitting it.

  15. Rest assured by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Native Advertising, or advertorial content that's camouflaged to mimic a site's original content is all the rage among web publishers these days

    Rest assured it won't happen here.

    If MojoKid, StartsWithABang, StewPid and Nerval's Lobster all fall under a bus.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Rest assured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See also: itwbennett, apk, etc.

    2. Re:Rest assured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rest assured it won't happen here.

      Turn off your ad blocker. It already has.

  16. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Is FOX News one giant political advertisement for the Republican party? Should it be stated as thus? Or is it misleading advertising?...

    Yea probably. They had to go somewhere since all the other news outlets have been bought and paid for by the Democrats....

  17. Political advertising by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    As always this is a case of "do what I say, not what I do" by a government agency. Will they finally shut down deceptive political ads, campaigns and promises that are delivered not only on the web but also in print, on the radio and on the TV? Didn't think so. The most outrageous lies are coming out of mouths of the politicians, not companies trying to sell you yet another ice cream, a car or a pair of shoes.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  18. The internet is global, not america only... so how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet is a global entity, not america only, so how is this going to change anything other than for companies bound by USA law?

  19. Re: Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think Trump is racist?

  20. It's not about adblockers... by radish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The site I work on uses native advertising (as well as more conventional ads). We prefer the native ads not because we're trying to fool blockers (or indeed users) - the ads are still clearly labelled as such. The reason we prefer them is they perform hugely better. When the ad content fits with the overall content of the site and is actually tailored to the audience it turns out people engage with it - and that makes the advertisers happy and makes us more money.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    1. Re:It's not about adblockers... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Based on this preliminary stuff, ads labeled as ads would not be affected. Who knows if this will go anywhere or not though.

    2. Re:It's not about adblockers... by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      A contrary experience with Native Advertising in this comment. I wonder if that's because you're doing things differently, or just have a different audience demographic.

    3. Re:It's not about adblockers... by radish · · Score: 1

      I think it's probably a bit of both. In our case, we're absolutely not trying to make the ads look like editorial content (we don't have any) - they "look like" user posts, they're just obviously branded as being paid. The real trick (I think) is that before we take any of these ads on we work with the brands in question to get them to understand our audience and what appeals to them, and can even provide them with creative services to help make stuff which resonates. When we get really good paid content, users don't just click on it, they actually share it with their friends. It's the online version of the "did you see that commercial for xyz" water cooler conversation. The downside is that it's a long and involved process to get advertisers on board, as they can't just reuse their existing inventory. Some brands are more receptive than others to that idea.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:It's not about adblockers... by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation.

      Content ads will naturally be more relevant on niche-topic forums than on general forums or news sites.

      Are they pay-per-post-view, pay-per-title-view, pay-per-period, pay-per-click-in-post, or pay-per-action? And are there strict rules against commercial posts outside this system?

  21. Does the linked article count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty funny that the "article" this links to is itself an advertisement for an Adblock blocker.

    1. Re:Does the linked article count? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define advertisement.

      It would appear to be free and open source.

      Does that count?

  22. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    It's everywhere. Morning TV shows are nothing but ads with actual 'news' tickered at the bottom. Ellen used to be an entertaining talk show. Now it's a 60 minute ad for her sponsors.

    Hell Jurassic World was a 90 minute commercial for Beats, Samsung and Mercedes.

  23. I wonder how this will affect my site: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

    kr5ddit.com (still under development), where advertisers can buy moderation power directly from users so they can promote their stories to the top of the front page.

    What problem are the FTC trying to fix here? Nobody is forced to read articles or visit any website... If user's don't find native adverts interesting, they will shy away from the websites that do that. Why do we need regulation here when the free market can sort this problem out? Making false claims about your product is already illegal, no?

    1. Re:I wonder how this will affect my site: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of sites that link to downloads that have ads on the download page. These ads display "Download" buttons making them to appear as though they are the true download link, which causes confusion to those not familiar with web technologies. So you end up with users downloading malware when they thought they were downloading another piece of software.

    2. Re:I wonder how this will affect my site: by Procrasti · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but (according to TFA) this affects much more than just download buttons that aren't.

      This would basically make it illegal for advertisers to use kr5ddit to promote their product in the way that kr5ddit was designed to be used.

      It seems to me that it would also make these comments themselves illegal too, in as much as they can be seen as advertising for kr5ddit.

      Seems to go against free speech rights.

    3. Re:I wonder how this will affect my site: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False advertising has always been illegal. Pretending your advertisement isn't an advertisement is false. Just because you're discussing something doesn't mean it's an advertisement. Your site is on topic here. If you randomly started promoting it on a cooking website then you could consider that an advertisement.

  24. native advertising by rossdee · · Score: 2

    What tribes are involved?

    1. Re: native advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What tribes are involved?

      Mostly the Angles and the Saxons. Why do you ask?

    2. Re:native advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What tribes are involved?
      Click here for local squaw's secret! Medicine men hate her!

  25. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a law requiring TV shows and the like (including movies) to list all sponsored content (basically, if they're being compensated for something) at the end of the show/movie in a readable list. I want to know if the mention of X on program Y is because they were paid for it, or because they wanted to put it into the show for whatever reason.

  26. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by caseih · · Score: 1

    I had no idea TV was like this. I haven't really watched any prime-time television in years now. Didn't know I was missing so much! Are the popular sitcoms and dramas like this also?

  27. Flash banner ads killed it for me long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Advertisers can kiss my ass, due to the bullshit a few allowed in, I've been blocking ever since.
    NO ad should use any form of: Java, flash, or animated GIFs. Until they all follow that rule, my blocker, in the form of DNS Redirect, stays up.
    What? Not all of them will follow. Guess I won't be seeing many ads then.

  28. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    Between the 10 minutes of commercials in a 30 minute time slot (including running closing and/or opening credits in a small window while a commercial for some other show is playing, sorta like picture-in-a-picture), the corner bugs, the bottom bars that over lap the corner bugs, the other corner bugs, etc. you don't even need a show to show it is about advertising.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  29. Just add the advertising label as an image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just add the "Advertisement" label as an randomly named image and it will still foil adblockers.

    1. Re:Just add the advertising label as an image by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The whole reason that adblock even works is because the majority of web sites don't serve up the ads themselves, they go through a relatively small set of third party sites that do all the distasteful stuff themselves. So if you visit welovecats.org you don't have to have a block rule for that site or algorithms to figure out if an image coming from that site is an ad or not, instead you've got block rule for googleadservices.com or something like that.

      And it works because adblock users are relatively few. If adblock really started cutting into revenue then welovecats.org would start doing things the old fashioned way, do some actual work, curate the ads by hand, sell ad space to potential advertisers, etc.

    2. Re:Just add the advertising label as an image by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Naw, that can be worked around.

    3. Re:Just add the advertising label as an image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they ever did that I would just switch over to pussylover.com . That'll teach em!

    4. Re: Just add the advertising label as an image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to elaborate?

  30. Good news everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean half the "submissions" that make it to slashdot's front page now have to be earmarked as advertisements?

  31. Re:It may still have benefits by houghi · · Score: 2

    Many people us it because they do not like ads. That includes me. I oppose to native advertising. I oppose to any advertising.

    I understand that the ads industry has a different point of view, but they can defend themselves if they so like to do and they do that pretty well, as many people defend them without even being paid for it or get anything in return.

    They say things like 'I would not mind ads that have XXX'. Well, I do.

    Or to quote Banksy:
    People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

    You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

    Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

    You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  32. Re:Vote by Darinbob · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm practicing my Trump salute. All hail our new furor.

  33. Re: Vote by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Of course he is. He doesn't evey try to hide it. He denies it but in the same way he denies everything, rolling his eyes just right to tell his supporters "I'm just saying this to appease the media but you all know what I really think, wink wink, nudge nudge".

  34. Re:It may still have benefits by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    I use it because I want to get the bandwidth that I'm paying for instead of having a lot of freeloaders piggy back on it. A 100 word article should not take several seconds to load, and if someone is on dialup it shouldn't take 5 minutes just to read the first line. Maybe if the advertisers starting paying their fair share here it wouldn't be so bad - after all, the junk mail that shows up from the postal service is not free, the advertisers had to pay bulk rates to get it to me (which I immediately throw away). If I get soo many advertising mailers the post office does not ask me to pay more money for a higher tier service. Internet advertisers slow down my computer, slow down my internet, and saturate the bandwidth.

    I think that for people not streaming video and just going to web pages and reading email, that the majority of bandwidth usage is from advertising and analytics and trcking. If they don't use ad blockers and noscript that is.

  35. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Every show or movie I've seen in the past many years has such a list at the end The law probably already exists. Almost always the last item in the credits (shocker). And listed as "promotional consideration"

    Keep in mind, the FTC isn't saying "you cannot." It's saying "you cannot do it and not tell people"

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  36. How to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as one's company/server is not in the US, what could FTC do?

  37. Re:The best adblocker (& far more for far less by cfalcon · · Score: 2

    You got modded down (obviously), but it's worth pointing out that if native advertising is banned or limited by the FCC, hosts blocking will retain its power indefinitely. The push towards mixing content with manipulative bullshit has always been the weak point of hosts blocking, and probably the biggest reason to not accept hosts based solutions in general.

  38. Re:The best adblocker (& far more for far less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SHHH, don't let apk see you

  39. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 2

    Fox News doesn't necessarily do what is best for Republicans. It appeals to Republicans, but only their instincts that lead those viewers to consume more Fox News.

    Basically Fox News capitalizes on Republican outrage, but doesn't necessarily serve Republican interests.

    I still think that the best thing that could happen to Fox News was a 2nd term for Obama. It definitely helps their viewership.

  40. Re:Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How TF did this get modded "Insightful?"

  41. R-E-S-P-E-C-T by Zaowulf · · Score: 1

    Find out what it means to me When advertisers finally respect me, my time, my my browser, and my computer, and display items that are not obnoxious, misleading, or blatant lies, then I will turn off my blocker. Until and unless that happens I'll continue to use them. As this will likely never happen, I will continue to use blockers whenever possible for the foreseeable future.

    1. Re:R-E-S-P-E-C-T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No-no. We need the state, it will save us. FTC go crawl back in your hole. I DO NOT NEED YOU, your services, your public pension or your GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

  42. Re:It may still have benefits by Xest · · Score: 1

    I take issue with ads regardless because I have literally zero interest in them, having never clicked one intentionally (sometimes they've used exploits to force me to click them when I click elsewhere on the page, but that's frankly a form of hacking and should be illegal if it's not). They're just a waste of time and bandwidth to me, therefore nowadays I block every type of ad I can.

    The real problem is that you don't know if a page is ad sponsored until you visit it. Sites should have to disclose they're ad sponsored to search engines, such that search engines can show an icon or similar denoting each result as ad sponsored and allow users to filter results based on this (and potentially other flags - i.e. Paywall).

    Whilst companies expect to be visible on the public web, whilst also expecting you to pay them somehow and crying when you choose not to (by blocking ads) then frankly I have little sympathy. They can't expect to have their cake and eat it too - whilst users don't get to make an informed choice about whether they wish to visit a site based on whether it has ads or tracking or not, sites using ads should not complain that users decide to block them. It's a two way street, if I don't know ahead of time what they expect from me before I view the content, then they can't complain when I restrict how I view the content (i.e. minus the ads).

  43. Re:Vote by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    Elect Trump for the supreme court!

  44. Re: Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternatively, Trump had the support of some people, but obviously not others.

  45. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cant fuck an advert to death.

  46. Our FTC is a Failure by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    I cannot see how the Federal Trade Commission can in good conscience accept money from the American people. They don't protect a level commerce field. They don't do anything to stop anti-competitive legislation. They don't do anything about monopolies. The don't certainly don't protect consumers.

    Why should the good tax payers pay them?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  47. Well now... by thejynxed · · Score: 1

    ... there goes about 45% of "content" on Slashdot.

    --
    @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  48. Re: Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump did say we should ban all Muslims from the USA.

  49. The best adblocker (& far more for far less)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    FREE, not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability. Does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & local DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues & it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels via 1 file you NATIVELY have - firewalls do the rest (on less used IP address trackers vs. host-domain name type).

    ---

    It obtains data vs. threats & for adblocking from 10 reputable security community sites!

    ---

    SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocks + local RAM cached favorite sites @ TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS (aids reliability)) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

    ---

    All that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who verified it's source as safe http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... ) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    Another http://www.isthisfilesafe.com/...

    Its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    * "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THE WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  50. Re:The best adblocker (& far more for far less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts do more than addons for less resources. Downmods don't prove him wrong. They prove he's right and that downmodders can't prove him wrong.

  51. Hosts strength is it does more for less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Far more for more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity + for far less & it's fact downmodders can't prove wrong.

    "it's worth pointing out that if native advertising is banned or limited by the FCC, hosts blocking will retain its power indefinitely" - by cfalcon (779563) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @04:02AM (#51177331)

    Agreed - & hosts aren't "souled-out" like browser addons (ghostery, adblock, adblock+ etc.).

    "You got modded down (obviously)" - by cfalcon (779563) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @04:02AM (#51177331)

    Like I said above - no biggie - it's NOT proving me validly technically wrong on how inferior & inefficient + redundant addons are in the face of hosts.

    "The push towards mixing content with manipulative bullshit has always been the weak point of hosts blocking, and probably the biggest reason to not accept hosts based solutions in general" - by cfalcon (779563) on Thursday December 24, 2015 @04:02AM (#51177331)

    Not much of a reason & you don't SEE A LOT OF THAT since advertisers (rightfully, I don't blame them) DO NOT TRUST WEBMASTERS' ALLEGED CLICKVIEW COUNTS FOR PAYMENTS - it hasn't ever really 'caught on' & THAT IS WHY.

    (Follow the money - it's the answer to 99/100 questions & it's the answer to why you don't see much (if any) real paying advertisement done that way!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly: Like Rock-N-Roll? You can't KILL hosts! Why?

    Hosts function to block other threats (maliciously coded sites, botnets, malware etc. - et al) + speed you up & make your connection more reliable (vs. downed or redirect poisoned DNS) too AND FOR FAR LESS (see subject)... can't beat it, & neither can the downmodders, lol... apk

  52. Re:I guess this doesn't bar product placement thou by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    When my wife is also watching, I don't play my favorite TBBT (virtual) drinking game.

    Whenever a character makes a reference to a product or franchise, I say "Drink". Two in a row for the same product/franchise, I say "Chug".

    Virtual, because I generally don't drink much, and never drink _that_ much.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.