You Will Read Our Ads, And Like It 63
sheister writes "over at myciti.com they are asking members to agree to a new set of terms before using the service, including "'..we may display advertisements and promotions of all kinds on our web site(s) and you agree not to disable any technology required or utilized to serve or display such advertising;' Has anyone else noticed pushy Terms and Conditions like this on the web?"
Who cares? (Score:1)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Easy. They look at their logs and say, "Well now, it looks like the user from 12.34.56.78 loaded our front page, but none of our popup ads! And it appears a user from that IP is logged on as 'johnsmith'. Looks like it's time to fire off a legal threat to Mr. John Smith!"
Not that they'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any kind of legal action for something so silly, but it's totally possible for them to correlate their log data to determine which users are blocking ads. A workaround would be to use something like the BannerBlinds plugin for Mozilla, which still loads the ads, but then removes them from the page layout when displaying the page.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the reason I want to block ads is that I'm on the campus network and restricted to the total amount of bandwidth I'm allowed in a month. If I go over I get cut off. So anything that cuts unwanted bandwidth is good. Anything that forces me to give up precious bandwidth is a really bad thing.
In otherwords if they force too many ads down my connection I loose my connection and they loose a customer. When will they realize forced advertising is a bad idea? (I know, probably never.)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
Howabout webcaches in botswana, or iran? Will these bow to pressure from the great US of A?
Easy to block (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Easy to block (Score:1)
Re:Who cares? (Score:1)
Gives Them an Excuse To Bash You (Score:2)
Re:Gives Them an Excuse To Bash You (Score:2)
"Sorry, we see you've broken the terms of our agreement, so we can no longer keep your credit card interest below our maximum rate."
You have this backwards. I think what you really meant to say was, "Sorry, we see you've revealed yourself to be a pathetic little dying bank grasping at pennies in an effort to stay solvent just a few more months, so we can no longer keep your credit card. Please give us all our money back, so we can put it in your competitor."
that's fine with me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:that's fine with me (Score:1)
Re:that's fine with me (Score:2)
I don't see it. (Score:2)
So, where is this new policy?
Re:I don't see it. (Score:1)
Re:I don't see it. (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, they're sneaky alright. You have to enter your info and such, and then you click through to
Notice that not only do you agree to read the ads. You also give them carte blanche to use your personal, confidential data in "customizing" those ads. ("John, we see your bank balance is really low. Why not use your Citibank Premiere card to pay some of your bills?")
I liked myciti.com but this seems pretty obnoxious.
Great idea (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Now here is the issue: Who pays for the content on the net?
I know in my case I pay my access fee for X amount of bandwidth potential, and I pay by the GB for my colo'd servers at ColoGuys [cologuys.com] ( - shameless plug for John and Co). In fact, I charge ( or rather my company charges) for access to our servers. As part of my personal connection I have personal and organizational websites set up. Now I choose to make those freely available to anyone at any time. Why? because I want people to come by and take a look see. However, if I make my money off of a site ( as I do with my colo'd servers), I have the right to restrict access. In this case they are wiling to provide content in exchange for marketing. They can do this, I think it is a poor choice and will drive people away, but it is their choice. Think what would happen to slashdot if al advertising were taken away. Would it become subscription only? If not who picks up the tab? I say just don't use the service if you dont want to abide by the terms.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
(this could be an interesting debate...)
Falls on its own absurdity... (Score:2)
In essence I agree... but
Now, this indicates that they assume that I'm using this technology in the first place. What if I'm browsing in Lynx? What if I haven't downloaded this and that plugin?
Does browsing in Lynx violate their terms? Does not spending several hours on my 14k4 modem downloading the latest JRE violate their terms?
If you put something up on the web, expect people to request the data - through any tools they choose. If you specifically don't want them to do that, wrap the data in some way so it's only available to the people you want to see it...
I'd think my banking money would pay the bills (Score:3, Insightful)
seen it? (Score:3)
would I use their service? probably not.
__________________________________
Take a moment and IMAGINE a world
with no unsolicited ads. can you? It is a
fun excercise -- I think it would be
a much nicer world.
Re:seen it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone has to say it... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Someone has to say it... (Score:1)
So.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're deciding to run the software and access their website. By making the conscious decision to view the site, you're entering into an agreement with them for services rendered versus ad space on your web browser page. If you are not satisfied with this, i'm sure there are other banks with different policies.
Re:So.. (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, let's be fair. myciti.com is a free service offered by Citibank to let you organize all your online transactions through one portal. It stores passwords, checks balances for you, etc. Here's the rub: It really is free-as-in-beer. Now, if they want to recoup some of the cost and so use ads, that's their right. And if they want to hinge your usage of their free-as-in-beer site on your agreement to view those ads, it's still their right. If you don't like it, don't use the site... it's hardly a necessity, just a convenience.
All of that said, it's a dumb move by Citibank. It just engenders ill will, doesn't result in any more ads being viewed, and makes them look stupid (and a little petulant).
Disclaimer: I use the myciti.com site and have found it generally nice... though hardly indispensable.
Re:So.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, I think we have different views of free-as-in-beer. This appears to me to be an example of free-the-marketing-word.
From what I can tell by looking over the site (they don't make the real information easy to find for those who don't sign up), myciti.com is for Citibank customers only. In other words it's part of the package that comes with an account. Marketers like to refer to this as "free," but I tend to think "included" is a more accurate word for it. (I won't go into my rant about how these services serve the bank much more than the customers here).
Another point - even if myciti.com were a service provided for all to use with or without a Citibank account, it would cease to be free-as-in-beer when viewing ads (and running your browser in whatver configuration is required to view those ads) becomes a requirement to receive the service. This is somewhat reminiscent of the trend popularized by companies like Aureate/Radiate, Conducent/Timesink, etc (and still used in apps like Opera and Eudora) to call ad-sponsored applications "free."
Free-as-in-beer means "This nifty thing is here for you to take and enjoy, no strings attached" not "If you buy our product you can have this nifty thing" or "If you view these ads you can have this nifty thing."
Russ
Re:So.. (Score:2)
I was unclear. Up until recently, there were no ads on myciti.com. Nor did you have to have a Citibank account to use it. (Of course they only marketed to their own customers.) This, I think we agree, is free-as-in-beer.
Now they are moving towards ads. This of course represents a real cost -- in bandwidth, time, or attention -- and so it isn't really "free-as-in-beer" anymore. I'm not sure about the account restriction but that would probably qualify it too.
Noticed? Not me. (Score:4, Funny)
One step to go... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One step to go... (Score:1)
"let us bow our heads in payment"
Ahhh Citibank (Score:2)
I love editable text boxes (Score:1, Funny)
Simply copy and paste this into the terms and conditions
I agree to allow citibank to hire one blonde [playboy bunny|chipendale] each month to my home and [suck my cock|lick my cunt] and show me advertising material until I cum in [her|his] mouth.
Why's a BANK need to push advertising this hard? (Score:5, Insightful)
But myciti.com isn't a content provider; it's a banking/investment service. Presumably, if I take the trouble to browse there, it's because I think I might want to see what services they offer.
But apprently they assume their services are so worthless that before I'd purchase those services, I'd have to be overcome by their advertising. Or they think their marketting position is so precarious, they must have a captive audience.
Or perhaps they're confident in their services but want to subject me to ads for their third-party affiliates? Is citibank worried they can't profit without selling my eyes to third parties?
Whatever the case, it appears that citibank isn't doing so well. Either their products don't sell without extensive, in-your-face advertising, or the company isn't profitable without selling marketting in addition to investment products.
Either way, it seems a good indication -- one might say an invitation even -- to stay away from citibank.
And that's what I'll be doing, thanks.
For the 13th time (Score:3, Informative)
That's nothing. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's nothing. (Score:1)
Just click "accept". Forget the "you have now signed over your soul to us" bit.....Just a formality...
Try 1wrestling (Score:4, Interesting)
"We're sorry, but our site relies on the revenue we get from advertisers to bring you the quality content you see each day. Consequently, we no longer permit access from users who use Ad blocking software."
Re:Try 1wrestling (Score:1)
Re:Try 1wrestling (Score:3, Insightful)
I felt I HAD to start using ad blocking software when sites started doing REALLY invasive ads (X10, yahoo, flash ads, etc.) That and the tracking being done by companies like doubleclick. With limited bandwidth, it was a no-brainer decision. Some sites are so bad that they have 200K or so of ads for ~2K of content. Pathetic. Then there are the annoying sites that spread 20K of text over 5 pages just so they can get more ad impressions at our expense. Unfortunately, the responsible sites that I like suffer due to the actions of irresponsible sites.
In the 200K ads vs 2K content example, you kinda wonder what their operating costs would be if they DIDN'T serve ads. Maybe they wouldn't need so many ads to make ends meet if their bandwidth bill was 1/100th the size that it currently is.
Yeah there is the argument that if you want the content, you MUST take the ads too. I don't agree with that, which is why I use TIVO and bypass ads on tv, or change channels or pop in a CD when listening to radio and the ads come on. Media execs would call me a theif saying that they "own" my time between content delivery. Bullcrap. That is a red herring / false argument in a vain attempt to hold onto a failing business model. Adapt or die, I say. It's the same type of argument that commercial software vendors try to use against open source / free software.
Ad Bandwidth (Score:1)
This is probably posted elsewhere in this comment, but you can use the hosts file provided by http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html to help redirect some of those ad lookups to localhost. I'll leave the ethic question of doing that up to you, but it can help in a low bandwidth situation (as well as turning off images).
Re:Try 1wrestling (Score:1, Insightful)
browsers I use lynx (no pop-up windows), mozilla
(with pop up windows disabled) and konqueror (pop-up
windows disabled again).
ECW! ECW! ECW!
No problem here, and here's why (Score:1)
* Use the "trusted sites" zone in IE5 to list sites and even whole domains whose scripts I'll allow to run, such as "https://*.mybank.com/", and then turn off all scripting for the other zones.
* Run a local proxy server that refuses to serve certain URLs, such as "http://*/ads/*". I have a pretty long list of URL patterns now.
The 1wrestling.com site comes up ok on this setup - probably because the Javascript that looks for ad blockers doesn't run.
Re:Try 1wrestling (Score:1)
"Shitibank"? Taken. (Score:1)
"myshiti"
The joke is old [shitibank.com].
How do the advertisers feel about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are the advertisers insisting on this, or is it something that Citi are doing to increase the number of views they get for each advertiser?
Slashdot Ads (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, what are the odds that this post is modded offtopic?
Re:Slashdot Ads (Score:2)
frob.
What about Mozilla's anti-popup feature? (Score:2)
Does THAT count?
This is a non-problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Technology? What technology? Where is the description of the technology in question? How is an end user supposed to know which technologies are "required or utilized" if the "agreement" does not specifically include them? How is anyone supposed to know if they are in compliance with the "agreement"?
The "not to disable" part is also interesting. That's not the same thing as "enabling" the unmentioned "required or utilized" technologies (cookies and popups?). I don't have to accept cookies or enable popups, especially if I disabled those features before visiting their website. I don't have to install Flash. In fact, I can easily find a web browser that is simply too old to support any of their "technology".
And then we have the last line of defense: ignorance. "Gee whiz Citibank, I had no idea that I was prohibited from disabling W, X, Y, and Z to use your site. I have no idea what those thing are or why they don't work on my computer. Besides, the whole thing was set up by my brother in-law, who uses some other bank."
Now for an example of two wrongs making a right: Let's tell Citibank about Gator. Perhaps the marketing stupidity on both sides will cancel out.