I never said they were. I said informing people was one of the primary purposes, and it is -- even if that "informing" is little more than letting people know that the product exists. The other primary purpose is to encourage people to buy what is being advertised.
There was a time, though (prior to the "mad men" era), when ads really tried to inform. At some point, that went by the wayside and instead almost every ad is about social identity rather than information.
Needless to say, lots of people now just use a browser plugin to just accept the cookies blindly.
Why? When I encounter those overlays, I just ignore them. But, if you're concerned about cookies, then most browsers have a "private mode" and many browsers have a self-destructing cookie add-on of some sort. Use them.
It's just moving the trust issue to another company. On the other hand, any random VPN provider has a higher chance of treating your data with a modicum of respect than any of the major ISPs, so it's probably a good move.
I never minded ads on major TV networks. Still don't.
That's where we differ, then. Ads on TV networks were what got me to stop watching TV. I can't stand them, and the value proposition from the programming was nowhere near enough to make up for them.
However, I'm referencing what the summary actually said
You shouldn't ever accept summaries as authoritative. In this case, you shouldn't even accept the article that was summarized as authoritative.
The reality is we don't actually know the nitty-gritty details of how this works yet, and to draw any conclusions (let alone get outraged by them) is extremely premature.
There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising. It serves an important role.
But it's gone very wrong, and not just online. I think it's gone wrong in three basic ways:
1) It generally fails to fulfill one of the primary reasons for its existence: to actually and honestly inform people about products.
2) It has become too pervasive. Ads shouldn't cover every square inch of everything.
3) It has become way too intrusive.
Personally, I'm resigned to the notion that #1 and 2 will never change.
#3, though, is completely unacceptable. The fact that advertising companies spend so much time and energy working to defeat my efforts to keep them out of my metaphorical drawers means that they have placed themselves in the role of my enemy.
And since they have chosen to be my enemy, I will treat them as such until/unless the time comes that they can act in a more decent fashion.
I'm not even sure I'd trust someone I do know to do that. Especially produce and meat.
I would under the right circumstances. For instance, if I'm injured and can't make it to the store myself. But I wouldn't expect to be entirely happy with what they chose for me, and I certainly wouldn't trust someone who didn't know me pretty well to do it.
Agreed. Titanium Backup is the only way I've found to actually, you know, back the entire system up.
I use that, plus a short Tasker script, to automatically generate a backup every day and copy that backup to a server. That server then gets backed up using a real backup system that does versioning -- so, in the end, I can restore my phone to what it was at any point in the past.
It's a bit convoluted, and I wish there were an easier way, but has the advantage of actually working.
Now if they only make it so the browser won;t report anything about itself that would be great !
I really, really wish browsers would stop handing this information out. It's such an obvious thing, and I remain baffled about why no browser has fixed the issue.
In addition, the issue here is targeting, but ads have already been targeted for decades simply on the basis of where the ad would appear.
I think the issue isn't targeting, it's tracking. The sort of targeting you mention here is not objectionable at all. In fact, it's kindof interesting because you, as a user, could get an idea of what the target audience for the site in question is based on the ads it runs.
like how supermarket reward cards work.
The "reward" you get for supermarket reward cards is that they won't egregiously overcharge you. You aren't really getting anything of value, since those "discount" reward prices tend to be the normal price at stores that don't do reward cards.
Yes, even movie previews. They're far too deceptive to be useful. Maybe that's changed of late, though -- I don't know, because I stopped paying any attention whatsoever to them years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
if we get ads anyway what is it we want?
I want for ad companies to stop tracking me, even if that means all ads are for dick pills. I honestly couldn't care less what's being advertised.
1) Ads where never about just informing people.
I never said they were. I said informing people was one of the primary purposes, and it is -- even if that "informing" is little more than letting people know that the product exists. The other primary purpose is to encourage people to buy what is being advertised.
There was a time, though (prior to the "mad men" era), when ads really tried to inform. At some point, that went by the wayside and instead almost every ad is about social identity rather than information.
At least with Google, using their app store is not mandatory for releasing and distributing an app.
Titanium Backup.
I know it is difficult at first
I don't know this. I thought it was pretty damned easy.
Yeah, me too. It's either an incredibly tone-deaf name, or an incredibly honest one.
"Becoming"? We crossed that line quite a while ago. Now, they're just trying to determine what the maximally accepted level of scum is.
Needless to say, lots of people now just use a browser plugin to just accept the cookies blindly.
Why? When I encounter those overlays, I just ignore them. But, if you're concerned about cookies, then most browsers have a "private mode" and many browsers have a self-destructing cookie add-on of some sort. Use them.
It's just moving the trust issue to another company. On the other hand, any random VPN provider has a higher chance of treating your data with a modicum of respect than any of the major ISPs, so it's probably a good move.
Essentially they'd be 100% violating the spirit of the new law.
These people don't give two shits about the "spirit" of any laws. They view laws as things to be worked around.
I never minded ads on major TV networks. Still don't.
That's where we differ, then. Ads on TV networks were what got me to stop watching TV. I can't stand them, and the value proposition from the programming was nowhere near enough to make up for them.
I was sympathetic to the idea that most of the pages I visit are funded by advertisers, so it seemed fair.
Not me. If a site has an alternate way of letting me contribute (buy some schwag, donate a few bucks, etc.), I'll certainly do that.
But I refuse to expose myself to advertising networks, and any site that expects me to is no friend of mine.
Yep. The same when you register a car, move into a new house, etc.
And it's no less creepy or more acceptable now than it ever was.
However, I'm referencing what the summary actually said
You shouldn't ever accept summaries as authoritative. In this case, you shouldn't even accept the article that was summarized as authoritative.
The reality is we don't actually know the nitty-gritty details of how this works yet, and to draw any conclusions (let alone get outraged by them) is extremely premature.
There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising. It serves an important role.
But it's gone very wrong, and not just online. I think it's gone wrong in three basic ways:
1) It generally fails to fulfill one of the primary reasons for its existence: to actually and honestly inform people about products.
2) It has become too pervasive. Ads shouldn't cover every square inch of everything.
3) It has become way too intrusive.
Personally, I'm resigned to the notion that #1 and 2 will never change.
#3, though, is completely unacceptable. The fact that advertising companies spend so much time and energy working to defeat my efforts to keep them out of my metaphorical drawers means that they have placed themselves in the role of my enemy.
And since they have chosen to be my enemy, I will treat them as such until/unless the time comes that they can act in a more decent fashion.
For those of us who don't use Reddit?
it does not back up the app itself as when it restores, it simply downloads the latest version from the app store.
What if you are intentionally using an older version of something?
I'm not even sure I'd trust someone I do know to do that. Especially produce and meat.
I would under the right circumstances. For instance, if I'm injured and can't make it to the store myself. But I wouldn't expect to be entirely happy with what they chose for me, and I certainly wouldn't trust someone who didn't know me pretty well to do it.
Agreed. Titanium Backup is the only way I've found to actually, you know, back the entire system up.
I use that, plus a short Tasker script, to automatically generate a backup every day and copy that backup to a server. That server then gets backed up using a real backup system that does versioning -- so, in the end, I can restore my phone to what it was at any point in the past.
It's a bit convoluted, and I wish there were an easier way, but has the advantage of actually working.
Exactly so.
Yes, true. I wasn't advocating that they do this, merely stating that they technically could.
Now if they only make it so the browser won;t report anything about itself that would be great !
I really, really wish browsers would stop handing this information out. It's such an obvious thing, and I remain baffled about why no browser has fixed the issue.
In addition, the issue here is targeting, but ads have already been targeted for decades simply on the basis of where the ad would appear.
I think the issue isn't targeting, it's tracking. The sort of targeting you mention here is not objectionable at all. In fact, it's kindof interesting because you, as a user, could get an idea of what the target audience for the site in question is based on the ads it runs.
like how supermarket reward cards work.
The "reward" you get for supermarket reward cards is that they won't egregiously overcharge you. You aren't really getting anything of value, since those "discount" reward prices tend to be the normal price at stores that don't do reward cards.
Except that google isn't doing jack about the privacy issues.
Yes, even movie previews. They're far too deceptive to be useful. Maybe that's changed of late, though -- I don't know, because I stopped paying any attention whatsoever to them years ago.