5 Years Later, 'Do Not Track' System Ineffective 254
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"In 2009, a few Internet privacy advocates developed an idea that was supposed to give people a way to tell websites they don't want to be monitored as they move from website to website. The mechanism, which would eventually be built into all the major browsers, was called Do Not Track. ... But today, DNT hangs by a thread, neutered by a failure among stakeholders to reach agreement. Yes, if you turn it on in your browser, it sends a signal in the form of an HTTP header to Web companies' servers. But it probably won't change what data they collect. That's because most websites either don't honor DNT — it's currently a voluntary system — or they interpret it in different ways. Another problem — perhaps the biggest — is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means."
Never would work - You can trust them (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't trust ad agencies even if it was spelled out in law. There are always parties who just don't care about anything but making money.
If you want to not be tracked use some anonymizing technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
There are always parties who just don't care about anything but making money.
Theyre called "businesses".
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism sucks, until you look at all of the attempts to replace it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Having gone through this exercise of asking nicely to not be tracked, we are now protected against any accusations of over-reaction on our part when we defend ourselves from tracking by technological and legal means.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to not be tracked use some anonymizing technologies.
The problem with Do Not Track all along is that it has been voluntary. People who don't want to honor it just don't honor it.
OP's argument that "stakeholders" (a very misleading term here) can't agree on what it means is just plain BS. Everybody knows what it means. They just can't agree on which deliberately distorted interpretation of it best fits their business.
True (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I find the adverts for something I've just bought even more pointless, I'm hardly going to buy it twice !
Re: True (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Crack?
You don't say.. (Score:3, Funny)
Also: water: wet. Sky: blue. Rob Ford: drunk and high.
More at 11.
EFF's Privacy Badger (Score:3)
I use a script blocker and am testing out EFF's Privacy Badger: https://www.eff.org/privacybad... [eff.org]
I feel pretty well about my privacy from private enterprises, and luckily I have nothing to hide from the NSA.
Re: (Score:3)
I use a DNS (hosts file) based ad blocker. Works great. Although I'm less concerned about being tracked than I am about someone using ad networks as a vector for malware.
I'm not opposed to advertising, but until ad networks can be trusted, I'm going to leave the blocks in place.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a DNS (hosts file) based ad blocker.
Don't even use these words. They attract crazy posts from insane troll.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with not opposing the likes of the NSA while their power is still growing...
For the record, I never said nor implied that I don't oppose 'the like of the NSA.' Please do not put words in my mouth. To be clear, I mentioned it merely because the steps I take to protect my privacy from the private sector are not sufficient to protect me from Government agencies, based on recent revelations. Swing and a huge miss.
I said do not track! (Score:2)
Said one CEO, "I thought it was for the NSA."
I think you have that backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Another problem â" perhaps the biggest â" is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means.
"Do not track" is dead because the meaning is so obvious that they couldn't find a way to gut its meaning while pretending to give it lip service.
Re: I think you have that backwards (Score:2)
Most of the tools might be yours but the infrastructure was paid for by your customers, not your business. You didn't build that out of your pocket, you built it out of ours. Just like the roads, electric grid and the phone systems. Your customers paid for it. Business may be how some things are built but the capitol never comes from the businesses but from society at large. Quit taking credit for the money if others, asshole. Revisionist Capitalist jackass!
Re: (Score:1)
However with these business the customer are the people who buy add space from your. The user who uses the tool for free may think they are a customer of your product, but they are just a target audience, in essence just a resource like a piece of equipment.
The customer wants to track the resource. The equipment is recommended that is isn't tracked. However if you ignore that feature nothing much happens.
If the people really did care about the do not track option and stopped going to sites that tracked th
Re:I think you have that backwards (Score:4, Informative)
There is a difference between serving advertisements and tracking the customer.
You can still show advertisements without employing tactics to track a user's movement across the web to gather demographic information on their viewing habits and interests. Put up a website about computers and solicit advertisements from computer manufacturers (Dell, Apple, etc.) and the like. Monitor your server logs to see which stories are read most and gauge what topics are found most interesting from there. If your website has a social aspect, keep tabs on the discussed issues and if there are particular hot-topics, use that to fine-tune your ad-stream (e.g., don't advertise Microsoft Windows on Slashdot). All this information can be gleaned without following your users to other websites or compiling databases of information about the interests of each particular user.
That is what Do Not Track is about. It is an insistence that we, the viewers, don't want to be cataloged, our habits followed across the web and then sold to anyone with a large enough wallet. Many of us /also/ do not like advertising itself, but that is a separate issue (your argument would be more pertinent against ad-blocking). Websites can (and some do) survive well without relying on intrusive data-monitoring of individual users. Unfortunately, the alternative has become both too convenient and too lucrative for some businesses to resist. They have put money over morals again and I have little sympathy for them if ad-blockers and anti-tracking software makes their tactics less profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect, the one website you visit doesn't say all that much about who you are. From a statistical and marketing viewpoint I have no problem seeing that knowing you visit websites X and Y or X and not Y, Y or not X is far more valuable than knowing who visits X and Y individually. Targeted advertising works far better than general advertising, to use the car analogy there's no point in showing car ads to the person who's not buying a new car. Timing is everything which is why for example so ma
Re: (Score:2)
"A Contract" (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone wants everything for free, and so there is advertising.
The entire idea of "do not track" was ludicrous.
Everyone wants their free lunches with no strings attached, but there will always be strings.
Re:"A Contract" (Score:5, Insightful)
NO. People just don't want the web equivalent of a radio collar attached to them. They do not want to be stalked by creepy advertisers. They can advertise without stalking. Advertising survived and flourished for centuries without stalking.
Re:"A Contract" (Score:5, Informative)
And for me, that is one of the main reasons I quite aggressively block as much of this shit as possible.
Between companies like bright cove, scorecard research, and the literally dozens of tracking companies on the average web page, I have found I simply won't use the web without things like NoScript, and Ghostery, and as many as I can find for the browser I'm using.
Some web pages literally have 25 (or more in some cases) external entities who want to track what I do .. Facebook, Linked in, Google Analytics, and countless piles of crap.
I don't give a crap about your revenue model or your social media campaign -- I sure as hell didn't sign up for 50 entities I've never heard of knowing every site I visit.
Thankfully, there are plenty of really good privacy extensions out there. The more you have, the better. Because it's astounding just how much complete shit is embedded in every page -- which is not only bleeding out your personal information, but using up your bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
So many, many people simply don't understand TANSTAAFL.
Seriously - do you think everything is out there on the web solely for your convenience?
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, the euphemism "tracking" should be dropped and it should be called by its proper name: stalking.
I hope, most likely in vain, that cyberstalking laws could (one day) be used against these stalking advertisers.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're claiming that newspaper ads were a failure from the beginning but for some reason persisted throughout the 19th and 20th centuries? There was no tracking there, the ads in the newspaper had no way to report back where you were or what you bought at all. None. All those billboards lost money? The famous Burmashave signs were a total loss?
The TV ads failed miserably? The TV has no idea who went to the bathroom and who didn't. If you watched one, it had no idea if you lingered longer over the product
Re: (Score:1)
My free lunch is paid for with a ludicrously high monthly bill from my ISP.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do not track does not prohibit advertising. It is privacy for which websites you visit. Advertisers love that info to target ads and talor them to their target demographic. Let's face it, most beginning programmers are not interested in golf clubs. A guy shopping for an RV is a much better target.
Back on topic, I f I have an online persona that may be a grey area and I don't want a future employer to find out, while using a public hotspot, I could use a PC without a hard drive to boot from a Live CD to
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't want to offer up the content to those with adblockers or other DNT indicators, then they should just bite the bullet and do so.
It's not that people want their lunch for free, it's that they were provided a lunch without ever discussing the price and then hit with a price some folk didn't want to pay. It doesn't help that the price can often be a lot more than just the annoyance of an advertisement. Drive-by attacked from ads that don't get vetted are still a common reality -- scam websites a
Re: (Score:3)
I would not mind advertising if there were responsible advertisers. Instead this is like a war, the ads become bigger and more intrusive. Ads slow down our computers, some carry malware, some use popups, etc. In broadcast television in the US it is somewhat typical to have less than 25% of the time being spent on ads, but on the internet the vast majority of data being transferred may be advertisements! Ie, read a simple 2 line text mail message in a web browser while being shown very large images.
Turni
Re: (Score:2)
>Ads slow down our computers,
I suppose it's nearly 20 years ago now . . .
On a 486, which was still respectable though not top of the line at the tie, I had two full pages open (large monitor for the time), and both hit ad-heavy pages.
It brought the machine to its knees.
I installed junkbuster.
To this day, I don't block ads. But I'm downright aggressive with anything that blinks (or moves, or scrolls, or . . .), including "content"
hawk
Re: (Score:3)
"Do not track"?
Everyone wants everything for free, and so there is advertising.
The entire idea of "do not track" was ludicrous.
Everyone wants their free lunches with no strings attached, but there will always be strings.
No, not everyone. I would love to pay for a service that's worth the cost rather than use a heavily-tracking service. That's why I chose a private RSS aggregator which charges $20 a year rather than Feedly.
I'll vote with my wallet and give money to companies that have a product worth buying. I will not buy in to a business model that's revolting to me. Don't fucking tell me I want my shit for free. Man up and sell it to me.
Ha HA! (Score:2)
Did anyone really expect anything else? (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly didn't figure this to work at all. I'm actually surprised that the "Do Not Call" list works as well as it does.
As for me, ABP, NoScript, BetterPrivacy and Ghostery seem to do the job well enough
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone really expect anything else? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you missed the part that this is an opt-in thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the shit would anyone deliberate enable a data-sharing function in an extension specifically about enabling personal privacy? Unless there was an assumption that the data was only going to be used for the benefit of improving the extension and not to sell to advertisers (naive as that assumption may have been).
Re: (Score:2)
Good call, I plan on testing out Disconnect later on tonight.
Re:Did anyone really expect anything else? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For about a year after Do Not Call the number of calls drastically declined. Then they started back up. Right now it's basically easier for me to NEVER answer the phone than to try to report every caller. Especially ridiculous right now with the primary elections coming up (none of these campaigns will ever honor Do Not Call because they don't consider themselves to be telemarketers).
So the solution of refusing to use the phone (it's for dial-out only) could be applied to the internet if it gets bad enou
DoNoEvil Bit (Score:2)
Isn't this like that April Fools RFC?
Just like Do Not Call... (Score:2)
In principle it's supposed to stop telemarketers from bugging you. But in reality you still get calls because companies that you are currently doing business with are allowed to solicit you. Companies lobbied Congress for a loophole and got it.
As long as Do Not Track is voluntary it will be ineffective.
No shit Sherlock (Score:2)
Send a hot woman to walk naked in front of a frat house holding up a "do not take pics" sign and see if that works. Same idea.
Advertiser NEVER itnended to honor a DNT (Score:3)
From the get go advertised never intended to honor DNT, they simply slowed down any discussion and finally simply pulled excuse out of thin air to not honor it.
And the result is : thanks ghostery, noflash, adblock, and referer check.
That's SIX advertising posts on this page alone. (Score:2)
(cue the ad hominem attacks by A/C a.k.a. APK)
Exactly as predicted. (Score:2)
Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? (Score:2)
You're still A/C. Still APK far as I can tell. (Score:2)
"he"? (Score:2)
I don't use such - and I don't bother moderating A/C comments because I see them all at -1. I don't post A/C because I'm not ashamed of who I am.
While it's true I've made mistakes in the past, I (unlike you) own up to them. I also don't try to hide as an A/C.
Poor child.
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Modding your posts down isn't going to help. As others have already suggested, get help. Take your meds. Dive down a flight of stairs. Whatever it takes for you to stop ruining everyone's time.
Force them: Use the DoNotTrackMe add-on (Score:2)
Happily, the author is not connected to the ad industry: https://abine.com/donottrackme... [abine.com]
Double-speak (Score:2)
The timing of this amuses me, given what I recently saw on Yahoo. They've updated their privacy policy to say they ignore DNT. But since marketing types have to spin everything, they bill it as:
Thank you Yahoo for caring about my experience! :P
Blast from the past (Score:5, Funny)
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting tracking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Trackers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop trackers for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from trackers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Trackeres don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of tracking
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with trackers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of trackers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Thanks Apache (Score:1)
Thanks Apache for being pretentious assholes and hard coding your web-server to ignore the do not track flag when sent by I.E.
I told you so (Score:2)
I told you so 5 years ago, but of course no one listened to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I had you on adblock.
Why listen to browser providers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> Why should any content provider respect the wishes of a browser company, with regards to tracking?
Because DNT is opt-in and making a product choice has almost always been considered opt-in (they ensure it with an accepted EULA).
Re:Why listen to data-gatherers ? (Score:1)
That line does not even make sense. How does a user set that flag "by default" ?
DNT was dead to the user when companies demanded, and got the right to ignore it.
Everything after it was just circus, beating a dead horse while telling everyone that the slapping sound was the indication many people where working hard on it.
And pardon me, but believing DNT could work would be as stupid as leaving your wallet i
It was not ineffective at all! (Score:2)
It helped divert attention to privacy issues to a dead end for 5 years!
Did anyone ever really think this would work? (Score:3)
It's as dumb of an idea as thinking a "do not mug me" shirt would be worthwhile in a high-crime area, and (by measure) it's probably less effective than a rock that keeps tigers away. [evergreenterrace.com.au]
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. While its effectiveness at stopping tracking was never much at doubt, it very much brought out into the open how sleazy the advertising companies are. Ad companies for years paid lip-service about how they, of course, understood people's concerns but -because of how extensive their networks were - there unfortunately was no easy way to address these issues without actually tracking the users. Remember how you could go to doubleclick.net and have them set a special cookie that said "don't track m
DNT find out what it means to me (Score:2)
We shouldn't lose sight of the small victory here. Regardless of how it's handled, it's important that the end user can go on record as having requested more a tiny millibob of actual respect.
We also need a companion flags: YESISETITMYSELF and IFYOUBLOWMEOFFYOUREANASSHOLE.
the zipper and the bee (Score:2)
Ruminant self-castigation concerning my previous post.
Fingers and foghorn were clearly operating at different stages of rubbing the sand out of their eyes. Waking up is hard to do. Harrumph. Nothing burnishes one's wit like mucking up one's determiners twice in two sentences.
I blame it all on eliding the apostrophe from the all-caps. That small joke went against the soul of my being. It was like The Scream welling up inside me.
It just struck me that we should change the name of the apostrophe as used i
Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score:5, Informative)
"Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want."
Don't care. I don't see any ads, 'wanted' or not.
Adblock+Ghostery+a Refererblocker works for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.
If only they weren't lying. I don't want _any_ of the ads.
Re: (Score:3)
I gave up on ghostery. they're not bad guys (they cannot be trusted).
use 'disconnect' instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Ive come to the conclusion that using ANYTHING in conjunction with adblock is a bad idea-- they seem to overlap and cause conflicts, and adblock already attempts to do the stuff that Ghostery / disconnect / etc do.
Re: (Score:2)
AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
AbBlock Plus sold out, not AdBlock. Several things call themselves "AdBlock", but as far as I know none of them have sold out. The AdBlock Plus sellout resulted in a fork called AdBlock Edge, which is equivalent to AdBlock Plus, but without the "acceptable" ads "feature".
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone want to use a system that you promote? It could be the best in the world but with you as a spokesman it becomes badly tainted.
Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score:4, Informative)
Use RequestPolicy. It makes both AdBlock and Ghostery obsolete -- by referencing 3rd party servers on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. It might be a bit tedious to use the first time you visit a new website, but almost always it's obvious what needs to be unblocked.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you could just use Lynx.
Or you could just stop using the web.
Or you could disable all images and javascript.
Pretty much anything is less work and less annoying than having to screw with all the times those tools screw up and you have to fix or whitelist a website. Just look at all the mental energy in this comment thread wasted trying to put together 5, 6, or 7 tools in the right combination like alchemists.
Or, you could just not give a damn so long as it's not flashing or covering the content, and avo
The author of the above software is not stable. (Score:3, Informative)
Too bad - this is precisely this kind of situation where hostfiles can represent a
Right on time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
APK, you're insane. Your crazy incoherent ramblings and random use of bold and capital letters are not helping your cause.
You sound like a cross between the Unabomber and a 9/11 Truther. Even if your software does what it claims to do, I would not trust it, simply on the basis of how you conduct yourself in discussions online.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.=> You spoke of how I conduct myself? Heh - I use facts that you dorks can't overcome, & your results? See above - reduced to LIBELING me like worms you all are (and you KNOW it, worm)... apk
I think this pretty much speaks for itself.
Weird and inconsistent use of punctuation (comma followed by ampersand, really?), excessive use of ellipsis, random ALL-CAPS and bold text, defending arguments with spurious insults, obsessively cataloguing perceived slights and list of enemies, and so on and so forth.
These are all hallmarks of a crazed conspiracy theorist or a person with severe mental instability, or both, which is often the case.
I don't know how you got the idea that I'm a mmell sock puppet. Loo
Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads.
Many others, however, like ones focused on news or politics or science or literature or whatever, are definitely not about the ads. At best, they're a minor annoyance that readers put up with -- very few people buy a copy of Scientific American or The New Yorker for the ads. In some cases, like trade magazines or foodie magazines, the ads can be targeted better, so I can see how some people want that.
In any case, the point is that "in the real world" people do NOT want advertising incessantly. How many people prefer to watch TV with advertisements thrown in (other than as a break to go to the bathroom or get a sandwich)? If everybody did, there would be little reason for technology that allows you to record and fast forward through the commercials.
People are often happy to receive ads on their terms and when they want to receive them. They know what they're getting if they buy a newspaper for the coupon section or if they buy a magazine 90% full of photos of expensive designer clothing ads.
But "real everyday people" are just as annoyed by pop-up ads or random ad interjections getting in their way of accomplishing tasks as anyone else is. And, let's face it, that's what MOST of the advertising on the web is. If I want to buy something on the web, I go to a freakin' merchant site and browse for things. It's not like I have to go out and buy a magazine to show me ads for designer clothes, when I can just go to the websites of the companies that sell this stuff and see the stuff directly!
In sum -- yeah, sometimes people buy things that have ads when they want to see ads. But on the internet, people often just want to get tasks done too -- whether it's sending email via webmail or interacting on Facebook or whatever. I have NEVER EVER in my life heard a person say, "Gee -- I really love how Facebook keeps adding more ads to my newsfeed" or "I really wish that my webmail would have more pop-ups to get in my way when I'm trying to read a message."
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, it's only to drool over the luxury centerfolds that I couldn't possibly afford.
Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
You must be a youngun'. Back in the pre-web days there were magazines that were pretty much 100% ads. "Computer Shopper" was one. "Nuts & Volts" was 90% ads. The best part of PC Magazine was the page of tombstone ads at the very back of the magazine, often for some weird product from a garage start-up. I have bought many, many newspapers/magazines "just for the ads".
Re: (Score:2)
Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
You must be a youngun'. Back in the pre-web days there were magazines that were pretty much 100% ads.
Seriously?!? This gets modded "insightful" when you just regurgitated what I said in my post?!
Let me refresh your memory, since you obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. Here's what I said:
As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able [sic, "about"] the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads. [snip] In some cases, like trade magazines or foodie magazines, the ads can be targeted better, so I can see how some people want that.
I'm not a "youngun'." I remember these things well, and they still exist in various areas, as I point out (though the ones that have survived seem more targeted to "style" conscious groups these days and such).
I have bought many, many newspapers/magazines "just for the ads".
No -- you just said you bought many MAGAZINES for the ads. You said this after quoting the sen
Re: (Score:2)
But, you got to select the ads you wanted to see, and paid for the printing.
I buy something online, and I get adverts for the exact same thing. Just bought a computer, now I get computer ads in my mailbox. Bought a car, now I get "now's the time to buy a car" adverts. Sure customer loyalty is big, and even a .01% chance of selling another car is worth the spend. But you're just pissing me off.
Worse, I click on something, decide I don't want it at all, and I get ads for the same or similar things. That'
Re: (Score:2)
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I've feeling frisky...
No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
People buy the sunday paper because of the ads. The big coupon supplement is the whole reason to buy it.
Wow, is there an echo in this room?
Not just some, MOST magazines that have a growth business model exist because people buy them for the ads.
I acknowledged about five different types of magazines that people buy for ads.
But here's the difference between magazines and most web advertising: when I buy a magazine for the ads, I'm buying a magazine for the ads. I know what I'm getting, and I'm making a conscious decision to have contact with something that will give me a lot of ads.
There's nothing wrong with that. I made the choice to buy the magaz
Why would anyone want it? (Score:1)
Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.
Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.
Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazin
Re: (Score:2)
That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
That's like saying I buy Playboy for the articles. I NEVER bought magazines/newspapers for the ads; I bought them for the content.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.
Wrong.
In the days before the World Wide Web existed I bought Computer Shopper magazine for the ads (the whole magazine was 95% ads). But that's the rare exception. People DO NOT want ads and they especially do not want the annoying, obnoxious ads that have become so prevalent.
Re: (Score:1)
Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.
are you a google shill? because you're doing a great job attempting to spin their bs lies.
DO NOT TRACK means exactly what it says. don't track my movements, don't put me in a huge database, don't intrude on my life and spy on my behavior. It should be the functional equivalent of surfing in "incognito" mode.
goog tried to subvert this into "do not serve targeted ads" which basically means they'll still track you.
I'm glad you worked really well from the political propaganda playbook that redefined words t
Re:Why would anyone want it? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Just, no.
Go back to class and learn how HTTP works. The user (and his "agent", the designated software making requests on his behalf) are fully in control of the experience. The website presents content on an open interface, and the user, via his agent, requests it as he sees fit. If he requests the text of the page, but not the images, that's his prerogative, not the site owner's. If he requests only certain images, follows only certain links, and doesn't do certain DOM manipulations via scripting, that also is the viewer's prerogative. The site owner has fuck-all to say about it.
That's why site owners cannot win against AdBlock. HTTP was built for exactly the situation that AdBlock enforces. It's just that most site owners got used to lazy, unconfigurable user agents that didn't do what their users actually wanted. Now that some users are daring to go against that "standard", site owners are showing their true colors by becoming a bunch of whiny asshats.
This has nothing to do with geeks, either. AdBlock is becoming my go-to tool for people that complain their "internet is slow". And once they get a glimpse of the web without ads, it's game over. Nobody wants advertising. People tolerate advertising as long as what they get in return is worth putting up with some no-skill ass-clown shouting about the product he's been hired to shill for. But advertising companies long ago stepped across that line. I have no moral qualms about wiping out advertising completely. I'm willing to do it and put up with whatever consequences there are. Advertisers are wise to not push me or those that think similarly.
Re: (Score:3)
Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.
Tell me which ads I do want, I dare you.
It's not difficult. Hint: One word.
Yes, that's right. That word is "none".
If I want something, I know how to search. If I'm looking for inspiration, I know how to search. I watch movie trailers for fun, for example, and then write down which movies I like. There is exactly zero need to shove a trailer down my throat, and more likely than not if you try to, I'll not watch the movie because I don't like your attitude.
Here's how to get customers like me: Put your adverti
Re: (Score:2)
They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising.
[citation required]
No, wait, I'll up the ante: Challenge: Find me someone who WANTS pop-up ads. I mean as a victim, not as someone selling them for a living. I'm quite sure that a gay jewish nazi is easier to find.