Playing Around With Tracking Protection In IE9 138
Roberto123 writes "I have tried out the Tracking Protection feature in the coming Internet Explorer 9 browser from Microsoft. While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites, I'm not yet convinced that giving the users the options to select content to 'Block' or 'Allow' will be that effective."
Hooray (Score:1, Insightful)
Begin the Microsoft bashing for giving users more options that resemble functionality available in Firefox (with addons)!
Re:Better than not having it (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (Score:0, Insightful)
I am totally looking forward to this. I'm not just hating on Facebook either. "We'll make it up with advertising" just doesn't work for me. I'm happy to stop visiting a site when they restrict my access due to ad-blocking.
Re:Hooray (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ad-supported models are inherently brittle. They rely on advertisers being willing to purchase space, because they believe it to be worth their while. If consumers are unwilling to watch (and, indeed, act on) adverts, the magic money tree suddenly goes bare. No amount of howling that people who skip adverts are "stealing" content will put the fruit back on it. In the UK --- I don't know enough about the US --- the PVR has essentially killed one of the advertising-supported channels (ITV) to the point that its target demographic is now variously the old, poor and stupid who cannot manage a PVR. The smaller advertising-supported channels (ITV2/3/4, say) contain nothing but debt consolidation and personal injury shark adverts, and no-one with a post-16 education would find anything they might want to buy, even if they watched the adverts, which they don't. Unable to see their model is in a death spiral, the owners chase to the bottom, with programming aimed at the diminishing pool of viewers who are prepared to watch. The same is happening with Channel 5, while Channel 4 (which isn't directly ad-supported, but is indirectly ad-supported because as well as its own, small, advertising sales it is funded by a levy on ITV) has seen the writing on the wall and is desperately seeking funding as a top-slice on the BBC license income.
TV is progressively going subscription. Yes, some of the subscription channels also show adverts, but that's gravy, in the manner of adverts in cinemas, and they could live without it by just raising their subscriptions. It's only a matter of time before "free", advertising-supported, web content goes the same way. How are AOL these days?
Re:No ads benefits folks you may not like (Score:2, Insightful)
No ads = less diverse content.
No, you see, people who look for add-ons like adblock don't do it to freeride the internet. Most of us are actually willing to see (and, god help us all, click) adds in the websites we visit. That's all fine and pretty. The problem arises when some stupid sites start doing flash-based advertisements; big, flashy, cpu-consuming, epilepsy-inducing, "facebook of sex" banners that keep making my head hurt and that occupy most of the real-state in a website.
Or do you think that any regular user will seek adblock in order to go around free of google text-based advertising? Hell, I even went thru the trouble of specifically white-listing google from my addblock because my problem is not with them or anyone being friendly but with those horrible flash ads that pollute many websites.
Ad blocking will not cause less diverse content. It will cause a shift of paradigm. It will change the ads and turn them into friendly things that bother very few so that the regular user will never even think about seeking ad blocking software (or even manually activating the IE9 option).
And it is precisely what happens with TV, except that for TV there is a central organism (country-specific, of course) that watches over the ad companies and doesn't allow them to do whatever they want. The internet can't have such a thing (well, it can, but we don't want it), so now we have the free market actually regulating itself, as it should. I think this is fucking awesome!
Re:No ads benefits folks you may not like (Score:4, Insightful)
I had to read your post twice, because it made absolutely no sense to me. Then, I realized I understood you - I still don't think it makes sense.
No ads = less diverse content.
When I think of "sites with ads" I think of: sites like cracked.com, link aggregators, and facebook - sites with no content of value
There will be unintended consequences. If one person blocks ads then they're just a free-rider. If everyone does, the web will really suck.
Unsubstantiated claim. On what basis do you make it? The absence of twitter, facebook and the like is hardly a game-stopper.
Sure, some sweet folks will continue to post hobby sites, just as in the golden days of yore. And non-profits will publish. And big corporate sales and propaganda sites. And the Government and lobbyists. (BTW: They're all selling you something, aren't they?) But most of what makes the web diverse and useful and free today will die if advertising is eliminated.
Wait - I'm completely lost by these statements. Aren't these "will still be around" sites the actual content on the Internet - the stuff that brought us all here in the first place? By your Slashdot UUID it would seem you're likely old enough to remember the days of dialup and maybe even BBSes; surely "the web" isn't more functionally useful now to you than it was back then? Honestly: it was easier to find stuff back then because there was a lot less noise (at least now that google has insisted on making their search engine less functional than astavista).
There will still be sites like Debka and WND, which get most of their revenue through syndication and memberships - if that's what you'd miss. CNN, Fox News and the like would likely be cut down to size if the syndicated adverts were all gone, as well. Wikipedia, by far the most useful "modern" web source? No ads to speak of, so 'blocking' them isn't a matter.
But even if that happens, getting rid of "all ads" is unlikely to happen. Honestly: I hope it doesn't happen.
Let me explain. I'm really adverse to ads. They bother me on a 'ok, now my eyes are twitching and i need a cigarette' level. However, within specific contexts, I appreciate them. For instance, I went to the trouble of disabling ad blocking on a couple sites I frequent because:
1) the sites were small: either community or proprietor run, with strong communities
2) the ads were communally targeted (ie for the group/community interests)
3) the ads were specifically picked/allowed by the site proprietors/owners/managers
4) the ads weren't intrusive or excessive
If advertisers hadn't decided to nuke users from orbit for short-term monetary gain, the popularity (and capability) of ad blocking software would've never come to be. They dug their own grave: they're providing nothing useful to their customers at this point, and need to re-think their business. (This goes for Google as well. Their ad noise is worse now than AltaVista was when I decided to stop using them.)