IE8 Will Contain an Accidental Ad Blocker 437
JagsLive sends in a Washington Post blog post reflecting on one privacy-enhancing feature of the upcoming Internet Explorer 8, the so-called "InPrivate Blocking" that has privacy advocates quietly cheering, and advertisers seriously worrying. Here is Microsoft's description of the feature. From the Post: "The advertising industry is bracing for trouble from the next version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, details of which were announced today, because it will offer a feature that blocks some ads and other content from third-parties that shows up on Web pages. A Microsoft spokesman said that the feature, to be known as 'InPrivate Blocking,' was never designed to be an ad blocker, though 'there may be ads that get blocked.' Instead, it was designed to stop tracking 'pixels' or pieces of code that could allow third-party sites to track users as they move around the Web."
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody that really wants ad blocking can do it now. Most of the people that do want it don't use IE.
All that this changes is control of the ads that are shown in IE. Instead of some 3rd party ad, you will get an ad that is 'blessed' by microsoft (after the advertiser pays a fee to M$).
From Microsoft's decription:
"Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing "off the record"? Perhaps you're using someone else's computer and you don't want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you're at an Internet kiosk and don't want the next person using it to know at which website you bank."
IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft thinks that using an Internet kiosk for banking is OK? Are they really that out of touch?
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Insightful)
Google anylitics killer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously... (Score:3, Insightful)
...there will be lots of comments along the lines of "Hey, I use Adblock Plus, it's good!".
I'll admit that I more or less forgot about advertising on the 'net, and was quite horrified when I saw somebody browsing without an ad blocker. The screen was crammed with idiotic messages, stupid images, blathering animations. The net actually looks completely messed-up, swamped in advertisements (most of them obviously created by waaaay-below-average-IQ people).
Sheesh, am I glad I found an ad blocker. Blocking some data actually makes the net more useful (as long as it isn't the state defining what is to be blocked).
Re:who do advertisers think they are? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the perspective of companies, they consider that your eyeballs on their ads is a fair trade for giving you access to their content. If they provided you with an opt-in model for advertising, we agree, their revenue stream would collapse and they'd cry. Then their content would disappear, and you (average population) would cry.
It's silly to expect them to give you content and get nothing in return. If your view was purely principled, you wouldn't go to their sites, and then you don't have to worry about it.
Re:Firefox Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what I thought also: in other words, IE will provide part of the functionality of NoScript and AdBlockPlus, starting from version 8.
Of course, they couldn't market it as such: it would be harder to plaster "innovation" all over it.
Marketing spin aside, this is good news: since most people still use IE, it's good that this should increase the privacy level for everyone (if implemented right, that is).
Advertisers: no need to worry. (Score:3, Insightful)
The giveaway is the word "subscription" - Apple got itself a slice to mobile phone revenue by means of the iPhone, MS is trying it again with ad revenue now the Yahoo deal fell through (who do you think will feel ad blocking most? (OK, "selective" ad blocking, I'm willing to bet it won't take long before the "trusted partner" scam will show up)*.
I suspect that that "possibility" will become mandatory to "maintain browsing security". You're welcome to it. Just a quick reminder: Automatic Updates led to the WGA disaster, so I wouldn't invest *too* much trust in it.
And remember: these are just tools - they are not an excuse to avoid using your brain.
*: I may be harsh here, but it's not like we're talking about a sterling track record here. I believe it when I see it.
Re:Adblockers = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Ads are theft too, with all their flash, sound and graphics, it costs more to watch the ads than the content if you're on a pay per byte subscription.
So it's fair to place all kinds of heavy and annoying ads, if people are just free to block those that gets too expensive or annoying. Action equals reaction, it's up to the ad-funded to find a profitable business model, including a sensible advertising policy that does not encourage visitors to block. If visitors block your ads, your product was not worth paying for anyway.
Alright I do know that blockers like ABP simply blocks everything and I gotta admit that may be unfair, but on the other hand, the majority of ads online are excessive, so the ones i feel sorry for are the minority who actually have a sane advertising policy.
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, we can all do this ourselves either with the appropriate browser software and settings or at a network level. But don't you see? If Microsoft are billing this as a feature for the next IE, then it means this sort of stuff is reaching mainstream consciousness. And it's about bloody time. Good for M$, for once!
MS are hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
http://c.microsoft.com/trans_pixel.aspx?TYPE=PV&r=http%3a%2f%2fslashdot.org%2f
Yes, it's a transparent 1x1 pixel GIF.
I see a lot of MS bashing already (Score:4, Insightful)
But when you read an article about it, it seems perfectly reasonably stuff; 'sandbox' your session against cookie- and form-storage, block annoying trackers - all part of the standard browser ! There's no pretense of 'total security and/or anonymity' here, people, so stop whining.
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately this is the way to handle beneficial things. Keep them low. Ad blockers are fantastic. However the more people use them, the less effective they will get. Advertisers will fight blockers if the get too well known. As long as there is a large enough user base to support the development of ad blockers, that at the same time is small enough not to draw too much attention, it's perfect.
It's the same with Firefox. The more attention and big money support it gets, the more it will go down the drain because it has to cater investors and feature hungy masses.
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a great analogy, MS; you should mention that tracking cookies never ask permission.
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Adblockers = theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the opposite... If IE8 had some really good anti-advertising stuff then I would be REALLY happy.
I am not against advertising, but I am against adverts that:
1) Suck up 50% of my CPU.
2) Make noise even though I don't want them to.
3) Decide to every now and then pop over my reading or viewing area.
I do click on adverts, and still want adverts, but I want adverts to behave like newspaper adverts!
Re:Firefox Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.
This is in addition to a good DNS and hosts file.
Not Ad Blocking, Tracking Blocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
Check out the Channel9 interview for more information and the intent of this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-8-Beta-2-Privacy-is-about-more-than-cookies/ [msdn.com]
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
Re:Not me (Score:3, Insightful)
It could seem like a chicken and egg situation where you can't provide content without users but without content you don't get any users but ultimately the balance tips much further towards Slashdot who provide the hosting, wrote the site code, organise the site and keep it up and running.
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:3, Insightful)
Know thine enemy. Microsoft have unquestionably had numerous high level meetings about this, obviously they've already decided this will help them push SilverShite to advertisers. What if ad funded sites deliberately break basic functionality to ensure visitors have Microsoft's proprietry garbage installed? Microsoft will probably sell it as "protect your revenue, no way for users to block ads". How to grow a new monopoly from a failing one (IE), think I'll pass!
Re:Google anylitics killer! (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't block "ads." It blocks snooping. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo for Microsoft! The feature doesn't affect honest advertising at all.
Anyone who wants to put up a straightforward ad, presenting information about a product and letting me decide whether I'm interesting in learning more and buying it, can still do so.
This only affects companies who are doing more than just advertising.
The fact that this is being described as an "ad" blocker just shows that advertising practices on the Web have become so debased that writers about the Web simply take it for granted that anything under the guise of advertising is likely to be invested with snooper gadgets that gather information about us without our knowledge.
That's not advertising. That's spying. "Advertising" is just the cover story.
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's more a case of your humor not having any sense of moderation.
Re:Does it bother anyone else? (Score:3, Insightful)
The business model of these websites is not much better than theft. They sell my viewing time with a profit to advertisers, who sell it with a profit to manufacturers, who make may pay for the advertising costs by marking up the product price.
So I've paid for all the parasites already, and now I have to waste my time actually watching their drivel?
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:1, Insightful)
Because all of the holes in Internet Explorer [secunia.com] make it easier for people to take over your computer via a webpage, which might [theregister.co.uk] be [theregister.co.uk] served [theregister.co.uk] in [theregister.co.uk] the [theregister.co.uk] advertising [theregister.co.uk] that still slips through the ad blocker?
Or, you know, because Firefox is a better browser?
The problem with ads. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, ads are the business model that many websites rely on, but consider how ads work.
Every time you buy a product, you're paying a little extra fee to be advertised to. Ads aren't free money that appears out of the air, they don't make things cheaper, they are just a different way of distributing wealth. You are still paying to fund these websites, they are not free, the cost of the ads is paid by YOU every time you buy something.
Personally, if I am going to pay the same regardless, I'd prefer not to have ads. Maybe the wealth isn't being distributed fairly, but honestly I think my eyeball-hours are worth more than that. To use a wee bit of economist speak: the market will adjust.
There are tons of free web hosts, and it's easy to set up a website yourself or have your techno-savvy friend do it. (Broadband + $15/mo for static IP + Old PC + LAMP + $6/yr Domain Name). If you're getting enough web traffic that you need more bandwidth than that, consider commercializing your user base in more than one way. (T-shirts, events, subscription benefits, surveys, etc...)
Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who installed firefox and ABP for em?
Marketers, eat shit and die (Score:5, Insightful)
"'It has the potential to undermine the economies of the Internet,' said Mike Zaneis, vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau."
Go kill yourself, you worthless festering sore on society's anus.
The advertising industry could have been responsible from the start, but they chose to incur a backlash of end users who got sick of sneaky tactics like popups and pop-unders. Advertisers who whine that end users no longer tolerate ads make me laugh.
Seriously, choke on your failure and die. You fuck.
Re:Does it bother anyone else? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not just the new IE8 blocking, but all forms of ad blocking? Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites.
As a consumer, I should not be forced to support $business_model, nor should I be concerned if it breaks or gets broken. It is my money, and *I* will decide how I spend it. If sites are worthwhile and reasonable, I'd consider paying for it. If it is not, Sorry Charlie.
I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing.
So when the collective communities bitch about the RIAA and its failing business model it's OK to shoot them into space (directly into the Sun even!), but when it's more than clear that people don't want to see unsolicited ads or be tracked for marketing we should reverse course and allow that Bad Idea(tm) to continue because some sites can't/won't thrive?
I will not lose any sleep whatsoever if a few hundred thousand websites go dark as a result of easy, simple and effective ad-blocking. I do not think IE8 "InPrivate" is geared towards 100% ad-blocking (it's surely not), but there are already ways to block really high percentages of unwanted screen-spam. This new feature could provoke the non-technical to WANT to block ads and tracking, once they figure out they really CAN.
Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".
Good observation. I saw this as the Extinguish prong of predictable MS behavior as well.
google analytics .. (Score:3, Insightful)
I block Google Analytics because the page seems to hang on it, same with most third party advert sites. The main site seems to hang while downloading from some advert site, waiting on DoubleClick etc. Now if they incorporated this 'stuff' into a static page it would most probably improve my viewing experience and I would haven't to go to the trouble of blocking the adverts
Downloading thirty elements just to view a 6x4 inch square of text
No, I'm not going to click on that advert on the top of the page
Re:Not Ad Blocking, Tracking Blocking... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great, you can turn that feature off in IE8, don't run IE8, and/or don't run any adblockers / tracking blockers. If you want to be tracked, be tracked! I just think it should be an opt-in choice not an opt-out choice. But that train left the station a long time ago, so we need tools (esp mainstream tools like IE features defaulting to on) to put a hurt on this business model of tracking people for profit.
Re:I know! I know! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me or does this Karma Train not make any sense?
Can I have +5 too? (Score:3, Insightful)
This post is clearly just as Funny/Insightful/Redundant as its ancestors.
Re:I know! I know! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:1, Insightful)
What would happen to, say, slashdot, if ads no longer brought in money? Are people really going to donate money to pay for the server costs?
There are lots of small sites, too, that (1) are funded from advertisements and (2) serve a useful function to the users. I run one. I wouldn't be able to run it on donations (I've tried). If it weren't for ads, it wouldn't be up.
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:4, Insightful)