Does not apply to Google, Apple, or Facebook.
December 27, 2014 2:48 PM Subscribe
Yes, insatiable personal information maws like Google and Facebook will stop creeping on you if you just ask them politely, just like the NSA will be sporting and ignore every bit of information you transmit if you send your congressperson a strongly-worded letter. No need for fancy cookie blockers or encryption because we're all gentlemen here, right?
posted by indubitable at 3:08 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 3:08 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
I guess it's just my inherent cynicism, but even if Do Not Track passed and included all the big players, I never really expected them to stop collating data on their users. They might use some method other than cookies, something that would be harder for a watchdog group to monitor, but there still would be ways.
There is just too much money in it. And even if the money wasn't used to buy the legislation that they want, it's certainly motivation enough to continue doing what they are doing, albeit on a more secretive basis.
Besides, (and here is where my cynicism turns to outright mistrust), the NSA probably has agreements and/or backdoors into all these systems so that they don't have to do all the legwork of monitoring people. And they won't stop doing what they're doing for reasons worse than avarice... they'll keep doing it for "national security".
And that terrifies me much worse than a company that is merely greedy. Greedy is predictable, the others who gain from this don't follow such obvious patterns.
posted by quin at 3:10 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
There is just too much money in it. And even if the money wasn't used to buy the legislation that they want, it's certainly motivation enough to continue doing what they are doing, albeit on a more secretive basis.
Besides, (and here is where my cynicism turns to outright mistrust), the NSA probably has agreements and/or backdoors into all these systems so that they don't have to do all the legwork of monitoring people. And they won't stop doing what they're doing for reasons worse than avarice... they'll keep doing it for "national security".
And that terrifies me much worse than a company that is merely greedy. Greedy is predictable, the others who gain from this don't follow such obvious patterns.
posted by quin at 3:10 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
We expected the advertising industry to self-police, and it's not working? This is my shocked face.
posted by neckro23 at 3:11 PM on December 27, 2014 [23 favorites]
posted by neckro23 at 3:11 PM on December 27, 2014 [23 favorites]
I'd take this with a big ol' grain of salt. Campbell, the author, is a former FCC bigwig who left to form an anti-Net-Neutrality, pro 'free market' think tank; I assume that any word he writes - especially in the Times - is gonna be a whole bunch of self-serving, nice sounding double talk. I'm still trying to untangle what his angle is here, though.
posted by Itaxpica at 3:12 PM on December 27, 2014 [17 favorites]
posted by Itaxpica at 3:12 PM on December 27, 2014 [17 favorites]
I run ghostery, flashblock, adblock plus, a tracker block, and regularly clean my cache and cookies.
I doubt I'm clean, but that's the best I can do.
posted by CrowGoat at 3:20 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
I doubt I'm clean, but that's the best I can do.
posted by CrowGoat at 3:20 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
I'm still trying to untangle what his angle is here, though.
I think his real problem isn't that some companies will be immune from the teeth of Do Not Track, it's that only the big guys will have this immunity. Early in the article he makes it clear that directed advertising is the economic engine that makes free services "like search and maps" possible, and I suspect his real beef is that the big guys are trying to form themselves a monopoly where only they will be able to effectively use this important source of revenue.
posted by localroger at 3:29 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
I think his real problem isn't that some companies will be immune from the teeth of Do Not Track, it's that only the big guys will have this immunity. Early in the article he makes it clear that directed advertising is the economic engine that makes free services "like search and maps" possible, and I suspect his real beef is that the big guys are trying to form themselves a monopoly where only they will be able to effectively use this important source of revenue.
posted by localroger at 3:29 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
So in the end we have to pay for "free" after all... whodathunkit?
posted by chavenet at 3:32 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by chavenet at 3:32 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
LOL. Of course the big players aren't going to give up the key piece of technology that makes their entire business model work.
They just want to make it much harder for start-ups to compete.
posted by sbutler at 3:36 PM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
They just want to make it much harder for start-ups to compete.
posted by sbutler at 3:36 PM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
I run ghostery, flashblock, adblock plus, a tracker block...
Uninstall all of that crap and use RequestPolicy.
You will learn a lot about how websites are serving content, and you will never have to wonder whether things you hope are being blocked really are.
posted by clarknova at 3:41 PM on December 27, 2014 [33 favorites]
Uninstall all of that crap and use RequestPolicy.
You will learn a lot about how websites are serving content, and you will never have to wonder whether things you hope are being blocked really are.
posted by clarknova at 3:41 PM on December 27, 2014 [33 favorites]
If Google et al are tracking me for the purposes of selling me stuff, they are crap at it. They are really good at showing me ads for the things I just bought or searched for, though.
I mean I still don't like the data-gathering but everyone keeps telling me how valuable it is while my own experience shows me that they don't know what to do with what they have.
Target has me as a Red Card customer, for example. They know exactly what I buy there. And they still don't ever send me coupons for the things I buy there, regularly, right now.
posted by emjaybee at 3:54 PM on December 27, 2014 [13 favorites]
I mean I still don't like the data-gathering but everyone keeps telling me how valuable it is while my own experience shows me that they don't know what to do with what they have.
Target has me as a Red Card customer, for example. They know exactly what I buy there. And they still don't ever send me coupons for the things I buy there, regularly, right now.
posted by emjaybee at 3:54 PM on December 27, 2014 [13 favorites]
Odd. Google, on the one hand, has gotten in trouble for circumventing measures designed to prevent tracking. Apple, on the other hand, has pretty consistently come down on the side of privacy (including "do not track" being available and I-coulda-sworn enabled by default, as well as things like returning a MAC address of 02:00:00:00:00:00 to any iOS app trying to identify a specific device for, basically always, ad-related tracking purposes).
Adobe is the company mentioned in the article that just boggles my mind entirely. I have no idea what motivations they'd have either way. I have my suspicions that they just got listed because they're all big software companies — anyone who's ever seen a "trend" piece knows that the research can't always be thorough.
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:55 PM on December 27, 2014
Adobe is the company mentioned in the article that just boggles my mind entirely. I have no idea what motivations they'd have either way. I have my suspicions that they just got listed because they're all big software companies — anyone who's ever seen a "trend" piece knows that the research can't always be thorough.
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:55 PM on December 27, 2014
Adobe is the company mentioned in the article that just boggles my mind entirely. I have no idea what motivations they'd have either way.
They create the Flash Player plugin and the authoring tools for that content. They are heavily invested in sites continuing to serve video and ads (and ads in video) via Flash player instead of any number of open standards.
They're going to be involved in any ad-web business because they create the tools that create web ads.
posted by device55 at 3:59 PM on December 27, 2014 [7 favorites]
They create the Flash Player plugin and the authoring tools for that content. They are heavily invested in sites continuing to serve video and ads (and ads in video) via Flash player instead of any number of open standards.
They're going to be involved in any ad-web business because they create the tools that create web ads.
posted by device55 at 3:59 PM on December 27, 2014 [7 favorites]
Believing in Do Not Track is equivalent to believing that you'll be able to ask nicely, and the mugger will indeed leave you alone.
posted by MysteriousMan at 4:08 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by MysteriousMan at 4:08 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
emjaybee: "Target has me as a Red Card customer, for example. They know exactly what I buy there. And they still don't ever send me coupons for the things I buy there, regularly, right now."
From Target's point of view, that seems correct to me— you're already a habitual customer for those products, giving you a discount on them doesn't help Target. Their revenue is only increased if they can persuade you to buy other goods in addition to the ones you're already routinely purchasing.
posted by Static Vagabond at 4:11 PM on December 27, 2014 [21 favorites]
From Target's point of view, that seems correct to me— you're already a habitual customer for those products, giving you a discount on them doesn't help Target. Their revenue is only increased if they can persuade you to buy other goods in addition to the ones you're already routinely purchasing.
posted by Static Vagabond at 4:11 PM on December 27, 2014 [21 favorites]
Sadly, this is not news; Do Not Track was dead on arrival years ago.
Google has a fairly decent set of user preferences to control what they track about you, or rather what data they know about you that they will use for advertising.
What really bugs me are the third party surveillance services you've never heard of that are building and reselling profile data about me. Google and Facebook are the obvious targets, but in many ways they keep most of the data they have about you in-house. Much more worried about scummy little third parties.
posted by Nelson at 4:13 PM on December 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Google has a fairly decent set of user preferences to control what they track about you, or rather what data they know about you that they will use for advertising.
What really bugs me are the third party surveillance services you've never heard of that are building and reselling profile data about me. Google and Facebook are the obvious targets, but in many ways they keep most of the data they have about you in-house. Much more worried about scummy little third parties.
posted by Nelson at 4:13 PM on December 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
It seems like a key bit of information is missing from the analysis: has anyone provided an estimate of how much online advertising (and, thus, ad supported sites) would suffer if we went back to ads being served based on the content of the surrounding page/site and not based on user profiling?
It seems to me that there's probably a viable enough middle-ground here before deciding that without tracking we lose the entire ad-supported web ecosystem, no?
(Also, if the author is an anti-net-neutrality figure, his angle might just be to get a prominent article published that paints Google, et al. as anti-consumer/user goliaths. Whereas, from the second news item on this page, it looks like the author's foundation is all about making sure government doesn't get in the way of the anti-consumer business practices of the kinds of companies they do support. [Incidentally, that page breaks scroll functionality for me in Chrome. There's probably a small bit of irony to tease out there.])
posted by nobody at 4:38 PM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
It seems to me that there's probably a viable enough middle-ground here before deciding that without tracking we lose the entire ad-supported web ecosystem, no?
(Also, if the author is an anti-net-neutrality figure, his angle might just be to get a prominent article published that paints Google, et al. as anti-consumer/user goliaths. Whereas, from the second news item on this page, it looks like the author's foundation is all about making sure government doesn't get in the way of the anti-consumer business practices of the kinds of companies they do support. [Incidentally, that page breaks scroll functionality for me in Chrome. There's probably a small bit of irony to tease out there.])
posted by nobody at 4:38 PM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
SV, that makes sense, except for the part where they don't offer me ads for anything I might like to buy in future. But perhaps I am just difficult.
posted by emjaybee at 4:42 PM on December 27, 2014
posted by emjaybee at 4:42 PM on December 27, 2014
They create the Flash Player plugin and the authoring tools for that content. They are heavily invested in sites continuing to serve video and ads (and ads in video) via Flash player instead of any number of open standards.
There's that, but they have other, more direct reasons for caring.
posted by asterix at 4:49 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
There's that, but they have other, more direct reasons for caring.
posted by asterix at 4:49 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
Target doesn't know what to do with your data. They're hiring a bunch of data scientists right now in fact. I think their strategy for the past few years has been "get a bunch of data, and we'll figure out how to use it later."
[I am not a target employee, but a friend recently interviewed with them for a data science type position and gave me the scoop about it]
posted by oceanjesse at 5:30 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
[I am not a target employee, but a friend recently interviewed with them for a data science type position and gave me the scoop about it]
posted by oceanjesse at 5:30 PM on December 27, 2014 [4 favorites]
What really bugs me are the third party surveillance services you've never heard of that are building and reselling profile data about me. Google and Facebook are the obvious targets, but in many ways they keep most of the data they have about you in-house. Much more worried about scummy little third parties.
Lightbeam is a nice tool for mapping the links between the ad networks and other sites you visit over time. It doesn't actually draw you a graph of the shadow profiles third party ad networks are building, but it gives you a sort of photo negative view of what they might look like. If you squint real hard.
Keep in mind that if you want to worry worry worry about who's selling your usage profile(s), it's not just the ad networks collecting those data. It's also unscrupulous, underpaid employees and departments who will sell it on the sly.
There's no limit to the paranoia you can enjoy!
posted by clarknova at 5:48 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Lightbeam is a nice tool for mapping the links between the ad networks and other sites you visit over time. It doesn't actually draw you a graph of the shadow profiles third party ad networks are building, but it gives you a sort of photo negative view of what they might look like. If you squint real hard.
Keep in mind that if you want to worry worry worry about who's selling your usage profile(s), it's not just the ad networks collecting those data. It's also unscrupulous, underpaid employees and departments who will sell it on the sly.
There's no limit to the paranoia you can enjoy!
posted by clarknova at 5:48 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
The FCC might not understand the internet, but if you compare their savvy to the FDA's understanding of drugs, they look like geniuses.
posted by Jeff Dewey at 5:54 PM on December 27, 2014
posted by Jeff Dewey at 5:54 PM on December 27, 2014
From Target's point of view, that seems correct to me— you're already a habitual customer for those products, giving you a discount on them doesn't help Target. Their revenue is only increased if they can persuade you to buy other goods in addition to the ones you're already routinely purchasing.
OTOH, Bed Bath and Beyond regularly (frequently!) sends me coupons for 20% off most things in the store (not including some brands and categories I don't generally buy, so…), and they seem to be doing reasonably okay.
posted by Lexica at 6:07 PM on December 27, 2014
OTOH, Bed Bath and Beyond regularly (frequently!) sends me coupons for 20% off most things in the store (not including some brands and categories I don't generally buy, so…), and they seem to be doing reasonably okay.
posted by Lexica at 6:07 PM on December 27, 2014
I have never, not once, bought something on the internet via clicking through an ad. Is the click-through ad, targeted or not, really an economically viable business model? Or is just a bubble market where all the players are getting investors for 'future profits'? Dr Dobbs just went down because 10 million page views in a year and the associated ad revenue was not enough to remain profitable. Has anyone here ever clicked through?
posted by drnick at 6:45 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by drnick at 6:45 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
Bed Bath & Beyond is a small fry compared to Target. Target isn't sending out "20% off anything in the store!" coupons because they don't need to.
Coupons like that are a terribly expensive strategy, unless you are desperate to just get people in the door. Target doesn't need to do it. They already have people coming in the door. They are trying to get people to spend more when they're in there. BBBY has a different challenge; they are trying to get people into their store instead of just buying everything at Target / WalMart / KMart / etc. Hence the un-targeted discount to lure you in.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:54 PM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Coupons like that are a terribly expensive strategy, unless you are desperate to just get people in the door. Target doesn't need to do it. They already have people coming in the door. They are trying to get people to spend more when they're in there. BBBY has a different challenge; they are trying to get people into their store instead of just buying everything at Target / WalMart / KMart / etc. Hence the un-targeted discount to lure you in.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:54 PM on December 27, 2014 [2 favorites]
Do not track also would do nothing about perma-cookies that Verizon and AT&T are sneaking into your http headers on your mobile device.
posted by peeedro at 6:56 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 6:56 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have verizon wireless on my iphone. I tried the UIDH detector site (http://lessonslearned.org/sniff; after disconnecting from wifi), and it doesn't show a Broadcast UID. What gives?
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:28 PM on December 27, 2014
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:28 PM on December 27, 2014
A few random tidbits.
Regarding Adobe, it's not flash ads per se that gets them on the list. Adobe has a rather large marketing analytics division that is completely independent of their creative side/creative cloud. It does pretty thorough tracking and predictive analytics to help serve ads to and from ad exchanges. That's most likely why they were included in the list.
The collapse of Do Not Track is a real problem precisely because of all the third party groups that are buying and reselling your data or piggy-backing on the data your generating while using other services. The reason is this: Microsoft - who has been and remains one of the biggest leaders in the Do Not Track movement, and who has one of the best privacy control dashboards - Google, Apple, Facebook are all wanting to switch away from cookies to something that might be thought of as a non-cookie cookie. It's proprietary and stored on their servers, not your machine. As a result those non-cookie cookies are way more secure. Right now your browser has the built in ability for web sites to install files on your hard drive. And because those directories aren't protected, those cookies are visible for any website that wants to/knows how to query them. So it's the heavy use of cookies that allows for all the third party players to get access to your browsing history. And those folks don't offer you nice controls or preferences about how they use your data.
Target's data collection is about predictive analytics, being able to determine your shopping trends and needs before you know you want/need them. They're already good at predicting pregnancies based on subtle shifts in your shopping habits. And lots of other things as well. But they get better and more accurate predictions when they know your other shopping habits, since they know they're not your only go-to store. And understand they might not have anything of value to sell you as an individual, even with great data about you; but you might be extremely similar to many other people, and with enough of your data added to enough of theirs, your data can be part of predicting other people's shopping needs. Point being: with big data, it's often not really about you.
posted by hank_14 at 7:29 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
Regarding Adobe, it's not flash ads per se that gets them on the list. Adobe has a rather large marketing analytics division that is completely independent of their creative side/creative cloud. It does pretty thorough tracking and predictive analytics to help serve ads to and from ad exchanges. That's most likely why they were included in the list.
The collapse of Do Not Track is a real problem precisely because of all the third party groups that are buying and reselling your data or piggy-backing on the data your generating while using other services. The reason is this: Microsoft - who has been and remains one of the biggest leaders in the Do Not Track movement, and who has one of the best privacy control dashboards - Google, Apple, Facebook are all wanting to switch away from cookies to something that might be thought of as a non-cookie cookie. It's proprietary and stored on their servers, not your machine. As a result those non-cookie cookies are way more secure. Right now your browser has the built in ability for web sites to install files on your hard drive. And because those directories aren't protected, those cookies are visible for any website that wants to/knows how to query them. So it's the heavy use of cookies that allows for all the third party players to get access to your browsing history. And those folks don't offer you nice controls or preferences about how they use your data.
Target's data collection is about predictive analytics, being able to determine your shopping trends and needs before you know you want/need them. They're already good at predicting pregnancies based on subtle shifts in your shopping habits. And lots of other things as well. But they get better and more accurate predictions when they know your other shopping habits, since they know they're not your only go-to store. And understand they might not have anything of value to sell you as an individual, even with great data about you; but you might be extremely similar to many other people, and with enough of your data added to enough of theirs, your data can be part of predicting other people's shopping needs. Point being: with big data, it's often not really about you.
posted by hank_14 at 7:29 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
Adobe is the company mentioned in the article that just boggles my mind entirely. I have no idea what motivations they'd have either way.
Adobe owns Omniture, one of the biggest tracking / metrics outfits that exists online. So, yeah.
posted by h0p3y at 7:33 PM on December 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Adobe owns Omniture, one of the biggest tracking / metrics outfits that exists online. So, yeah.
posted by h0p3y at 7:33 PM on December 27, 2014 [3 favorites]
Also, if you want a fun experiment, try to see how much of your monthly data usage is actually ad serving. A modern app ad involves sending an identifier to an ad exchange, having the ad exchange collate your identifying information with a matching ad related to some combination of your demographic, psychographic and behavioral profile, find a creative, and then serve up an ad, which is then downloaded to the phone. And then this cycles through, over and over again. And if the ads aren't optimized for low bandwidth, oh boy. Good times.
For bonus points, try to figure out how much of your battery is used by the ad serving process.
posted by hank_14 at 7:33 PM on December 27, 2014 [8 favorites]
For bonus points, try to figure out how much of your battery is used by the ad serving process.
posted by hank_14 at 7:33 PM on December 27, 2014 [8 favorites]
I guess the question I'm trying and failing to ask, is: does personal data on shoppers actually increase revenues for retailers? In aggregate, I can see needing to know that stocking more Pinefresh Cleaner at Store 55 is necessary because it sells really well there. But on an individual level, knowing that I personally bought some two months ago, and may buy some there again...how does that help their revenues? After all, I could move, or decide to try something else. What does my tiny datapoint/data trail really do to help retailers?
(the NSA is much more of a data for data's sake operation, also it's useful to have dirt if someone becomes a nuisance to the government. That's very different than monetizing the knowledge of how much toilet paper I personally consume.)
posted by emjaybee at 7:36 PM on December 27, 2014
(the NSA is much more of a data for data's sake operation, also it's useful to have dirt if someone becomes a nuisance to the government. That's very different than monetizing the knowledge of how much toilet paper I personally consume.)
posted by emjaybee at 7:36 PM on December 27, 2014
If they were really on top of their game, when they find out you're planning to move, they'd send you ads for moving supplies.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:41 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:41 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Oh, one more thing regarding not buying anything as a result of an ad. Everyone thinks this. Stats say it's true, but it's not true enough times that it's still worth advertising.
Why? Because people have the wrong idea about how ads influence them.
People tend to think of internet ads mostly in terms of direct response ads, where you see the ad, click on it, and make a purchase. That was really Google's big contribution, to shift everyone to the idea of measurable direct response using things like search ads. And the results are indeed measurable, though there's some debate in the ad world as to what is being measured. There's a problem called endogeneity, for example, which asks whether or not the ad is redirecting the consumer, or whether the ad simply provides a shortcut the consumer would have already self-directed themselves toward without the sponsored ad. If I search for sneakers and click on a sponsored link to Nike's website, it's likely - given Nike's brand hegemony - that I would have clicked on a link to Nike in the search results that wasn't sponsored. But whatever, direct response is the easiest to measure, and it's the most obvious form of internet advertising, and as a result it's what we tend to think of when we think "I've never bought something because of an online ad."
But it turns out that you seeing ads can have effects without you ever clicking on an ad. But you don't see this until the data you have access to is big enough or comprehensive enough. The general rule of thumb is it takes seven impressions (you seeing a digital ad) before it influences your purchase consideration. So the trick is a process then called attribution: if you see an ad multiple times, and then three days later search for something related to that ad, and click on a link (sponsored or otherwise) in the search results that takes you to something related to that ad, and then a couple days after that you buy a product from that company at Fred Meyer or Target, they have the ability to take your credit card data, your search data, and your ad exposure history to be able to assess the likelihood that we can "attribute" your new purchase to some influence caused by those first few display ads.
So long story short: you've been mind controlled, and don't even know it.
Kidding, not you, just the other people. The sheep. You're immune.
Mu ha ha ha.
posted by hank_14 at 7:46 PM on December 27, 2014 [20 favorites]
Why? Because people have the wrong idea about how ads influence them.
People tend to think of internet ads mostly in terms of direct response ads, where you see the ad, click on it, and make a purchase. That was really Google's big contribution, to shift everyone to the idea of measurable direct response using things like search ads. And the results are indeed measurable, though there's some debate in the ad world as to what is being measured. There's a problem called endogeneity, for example, which asks whether or not the ad is redirecting the consumer, or whether the ad simply provides a shortcut the consumer would have already self-directed themselves toward without the sponsored ad. If I search for sneakers and click on a sponsored link to Nike's website, it's likely - given Nike's brand hegemony - that I would have clicked on a link to Nike in the search results that wasn't sponsored. But whatever, direct response is the easiest to measure, and it's the most obvious form of internet advertising, and as a result it's what we tend to think of when we think "I've never bought something because of an online ad."
But it turns out that you seeing ads can have effects without you ever clicking on an ad. But you don't see this until the data you have access to is big enough or comprehensive enough. The general rule of thumb is it takes seven impressions (you seeing a digital ad) before it influences your purchase consideration. So the trick is a process then called attribution: if you see an ad multiple times, and then three days later search for something related to that ad, and click on a link (sponsored or otherwise) in the search results that takes you to something related to that ad, and then a couple days after that you buy a product from that company at Fred Meyer or Target, they have the ability to take your credit card data, your search data, and your ad exposure history to be able to assess the likelihood that we can "attribute" your new purchase to some influence caused by those first few display ads.
So long story short: you've been mind controlled, and don't even know it.
Kidding, not you, just the other people. The sheep. You're immune.
Mu ha ha ha.
posted by hank_14 at 7:46 PM on December 27, 2014 [20 favorites]
They have ads on the Internet? Oh right. *hugs Adblock*
posted by entropicamericana at 8:23 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:23 PM on December 27, 2014 [5 favorites]
AdNauseum is another, slightly absurdist response to data tracking.
posted by calmsea at 9:19 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by calmsea at 9:19 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
The only reason I keep using the relatively-terrible Android Firefox instead of Chrome or some other browser is that Firefox seems to be the only Android browser with adblocking.
posted by straight at 10:52 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 10:52 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Lexica: "OTOH, Bed Bath and Beyond regularly (frequently!) sends me coupons for 20% off most things in the store (not including some brands and categories I don't generally buy, so…), and they seem to be doing reasonably okay."
The 20% isn't much of a discount in my experience. BBB is one of those stores (like Sears and Michell's) whose prices are basically inflated by the amount of their regular discounts.
posted by Mitheral at 11:45 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
The 20% isn't much of a discount in my experience. BBB is one of those stores (like Sears and Michell's) whose prices are basically inflated by the amount of their regular discounts.
posted by Mitheral at 11:45 PM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I like Privacy Badger, which doesn't have the same conflicts of interest that Ghostery does.
I also like my own country's fairly stringent privacy regime. Now if only we could export our jurisdiction the way the US exports its one.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:07 AM on December 28, 2014 [4 favorites]
I also like my own country's fairly stringent privacy regime. Now if only we could export our jurisdiction the way the US exports its one.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:07 AM on December 28, 2014 [4 favorites]
Everybody loves to whine about ads, but when given a chance between a free, ad-supported product and an ad-free version for an extremely affordable price (e.g. $1), 95%+ of people opt for the ads. It's the same with free software: microscopic percentages of users contribute anything, either money or bug-fixes. People just seem to want and expect free shit with no strings attached, like it's some kind of right. Most online magazines are running close to the metal and relying on ads to keep them from bankruptcy. People who use ad-blockers (and refuse to pay for subscriptions) are just shitting on content producers. I have zero sympathy.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 3:06 AM on December 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 3:06 AM on December 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
Uninstall all of that crap and use RequestPolicy.
Thanks for this. What a relief to dump that armoury of extensions that's been slowing down Firefox for the last few years.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:11 AM on December 28, 2014
Thanks for this. What a relief to dump that armoury of extensions that's been slowing down Firefox for the last few years.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:11 AM on December 28, 2014
I really recommend µBlock (for Chrome and Opera): https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared
It's supposedly a lot more efficient than AdBlock and works perfectly on my end. And I agree about their stance regarding the ethics of ad blocking: "Using a blocker is NOT theft. Do not fall for this creepy idea. The ultimate logical consequence of "blocking = theft" is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy."
I rarely buy new stuff and i don't want to see ads, ever. It's an attack on sensibilities of all kind.
posted by hypertekst at 4:59 AM on December 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's supposedly a lot more efficient than AdBlock and works perfectly on my end. And I agree about their stance regarding the ethics of ad blocking: "Using a blocker is NOT theft. Do not fall for this creepy idea. The ultimate logical consequence of "blocking = theft" is the criminalisation of the inalienable right to privacy."
I rarely buy new stuff and i don't want to see ads, ever. It's an attack on sensibilities of all kind.
posted by hypertekst at 4:59 AM on December 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes let's definitely not tailspin into another tiresome Adblock Is Theft derail.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:56 AM on December 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 6:56 AM on December 28, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, online advertising works. And yes, precisely targeted ads work better. Good ad systems now know your age, income, gender, race, religion, location, interests, a list of previous web pages you've viewed. There's even an argument that this kind of targeting is better for everyone. If you're going to be seeing an ad anyway, it might as well be for something you might be interested in. Man, I'd love to see a Metafilter post about ad retargeting some time.
The day I quit working on building Internet ad systems I started running ad blockers. I'm currently running µBlock and Ghostery in blocking mode. Also the Do Not Track extension, which is a futile gesture but relevant to the discussion here.
If you're running AdBlock or AdBlock Plus you may want to give µBlock a look. It is supposed to be more efficient (see this article about AdBlock memory). But also there's been some shady stuff with AdBlock and AdBlock Plus hiding their source code, or cutting deals with Google to keep showing their ads, etc. µBlock looks like the new cool-kids open source blocker and so far mostly has worked for me. It's a bit too aggressive.
posted by Nelson at 7:54 AM on December 28, 2014 [5 favorites]
The day I quit working on building Internet ad systems I started running ad blockers. I'm currently running µBlock and Ghostery in blocking mode. Also the Do Not Track extension, which is a futile gesture but relevant to the discussion here.
If you're running AdBlock or AdBlock Plus you may want to give µBlock a look. It is supposed to be more efficient (see this article about AdBlock memory). But also there's been some shady stuff with AdBlock and AdBlock Plus hiding their source code, or cutting deals with Google to keep showing their ads, etc. µBlock looks like the new cool-kids open source blocker and so far mostly has worked for me. It's a bit too aggressive.
posted by Nelson at 7:54 AM on December 28, 2014 [5 favorites]
"when given a chance between a free, ad-supported product and an ad-free version for an extremely affordable price (e.g. $1), 95%+ of people opt for the ads"
I do not understand these people. I will get a "free" ad supported version of a game to try it out. But if I like it I buy it. It irritates the hell out of me that some only release "free" ad supported versions of their apps. I want to pay for the software and never see ads.
I hate the ad revenue model.
posted by MrBobaFett at 8:41 AM on December 28, 2014
I do not understand these people. I will get a "free" ad supported version of a game to try it out. But if I like it I buy it. It irritates the hell out of me that some only release "free" ad supported versions of their apps. I want to pay for the software and never see ads.
I hate the ad revenue model.
posted by MrBobaFett at 8:41 AM on December 28, 2014
Bed Bath & Beyond is a small fry compared to Target. Target isn't sending out "20% off anything in the store!" coupons because they don't need to.
Walgreens isn't small fry, and does a really good job with their targeted coupons IMO. I have handfuls of coupons for $3 off the kind-of-expensive face moisturizer I use. Having those coupons means instead of getting it when I'm at Target, I'll wait til the next time I'm at Walgreens. I think this is where those targeted coupons - even for things you buy regularly - drive revenue/business.
posted by misskaz at 9:32 AM on December 28, 2014
Walgreens isn't small fry, and does a really good job with their targeted coupons IMO. I have handfuls of coupons for $3 off the kind-of-expensive face moisturizer I use. Having those coupons means instead of getting it when I'm at Target, I'll wait til the next time I'm at Walgreens. I think this is where those targeted coupons - even for things you buy regularly - drive revenue/business.
posted by misskaz at 9:32 AM on December 28, 2014
Since µBlock isn't available for Firefox, what do people recommend these days? I don't like Ghostery's questionable data sharing practices, and I simply can't deal with a whitelist-only solution like Request Policy for the same reason I stopped using NoScript -- it's just too much work to whitelist everything that's necessary for sites to work properly. Is there anything on Firefox (aside from AdBlock Plus) that hits the sweet spot on the curve of moderate effort to maintain and somewhat decent privacy?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:39 AM on December 28, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 9:39 AM on December 28, 2014
I'm using Adblock Edge on Firefox - it is a fork of the Adblck Plus source code, without the commercial whitelist stuff. However, I just disabled it to give Privacy Badger a try, as I was not familiar with it prior to this FPP.
posted by COD at 9:59 AM on December 28, 2014
posted by COD at 9:59 AM on December 28, 2014
Yes let's definitely not tailspin into another tiresome Adblock Is Theft derail.
Why the hell not? Now full disclosure I work in online ads so I'm obviously more than a little biased here, but if you're not willing to pay for content why do you have an indelible right to consume it? Why is reading a Buzzfeed article, which someone was paid to produce and which is hosted on servers that cost money, without looking at the ads any different from grabbing a newspaper off a newsstand without paying? Ok, that screws the guy who runs the newsstand, so let's instead say jimmying the lock on one of those newspaper dispensers and grabbing one from there?
Everyone has the right to not be tracked or not see ads if they don't want to. They don't then have the right to then consume the content that those ads are supporting. Don't want to see ads? Stick to sites you've paid actual subscription money for (there are plenty. You're on one of them right now!) or close your damn browser.
posted by Itaxpica at 10:34 AM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why the hell not? Now full disclosure I work in online ads so I'm obviously more than a little biased here, but if you're not willing to pay for content why do you have an indelible right to consume it? Why is reading a Buzzfeed article, which someone was paid to produce and which is hosted on servers that cost money, without looking at the ads any different from grabbing a newspaper off a newsstand without paying? Ok, that screws the guy who runs the newsstand, so let's instead say jimmying the lock on one of those newspaper dispensers and grabbing one from there?
Everyone has the right to not be tracked or not see ads if they don't want to. They don't then have the right to then consume the content that those ads are supporting. Don't want to see ads? Stick to sites you've paid actual subscription money for (there are plenty. You're on one of them right now!) or close your damn browser.
posted by Itaxpica at 10:34 AM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why the hell not?
Because it's already been done ad nauseam.
posted by flabdablet at 10:45 AM on December 28, 2014
Because it's already been done ad nauseam.
posted by flabdablet at 10:45 AM on December 28, 2014
Some of us still have damaged bladders from fulfilling our moral responsibility to not leave the couch during TV ads.
posted by Nelson at 11:13 AM on December 28, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 11:13 AM on December 28, 2014 [11 favorites]
To really uphold your side of the bargain you need to seriously consider buying each advertised product. I mean, if no one buys the Chevy then the Chevy dollars will dry up and then who's going to finance your favorite TV show? (But I think if you buy the Chevy you can fastforward through the Chevy commercials for the next year, at least.)
posted by nobody at 12:31 PM on December 28, 2014
posted by nobody at 12:31 PM on December 28, 2014
Itaxpica: "Don't want to see ads? Stick to sites you've paid actual subscription money for (there are plenty. You're on one of them right now!) or close your damn browser."
Ad supported sites are free to stop serving data on port 80 any time they wish.
posted by Mitheral at 1:27 PM on December 28, 2014 [6 favorites]
Ad supported sites are free to stop serving data on port 80 any time they wish.
posted by Mitheral at 1:27 PM on December 28, 2014 [6 favorites]
I guess the question I'm trying and failing to ask, is: does personal data on shoppers actually increase revenues for retailers? In aggregate, I can see needing to know that stocking more Pinefresh Cleaner at Store 55 is necessary because it sells really well there. But on an individual level, knowing that I personally bought some two months ago, and may buy some there again...how does that help their revenues? After all, I could move, or decide to try something else. What does my tiny datapoint/data trail really do to help retailers?
Isn't it more that the use of predictive analysis, based on huge volumes of data about what people buy, allows them to know that, because you bought products x and y, you are in the demographic that might buy product z as well if only you knew about it? I'm not really clear to what extent retail outlets use the data they gather on what people purchase together (they certainly have the data, even if they aren't able to link it to an individual), but it's not that hard for them to put you into a group based on the set of products you buy regularly and target you based on other things that 'people like you' buy. Also, they are regularly prodding you with a reminder that you buy Pinefresh Cleaner and, when you do, you buy it from one of their outlets rather than someone else.
posted by dg at 3:03 PM on December 28, 2014
Isn't it more that the use of predictive analysis, based on huge volumes of data about what people buy, allows them to know that, because you bought products x and y, you are in the demographic that might buy product z as well if only you knew about it? I'm not really clear to what extent retail outlets use the data they gather on what people purchase together (they certainly have the data, even if they aren't able to link it to an individual), but it's not that hard for them to put you into a group based on the set of products you buy regularly and target you based on other things that 'people like you' buy. Also, they are regularly prodding you with a reminder that you buy Pinefresh Cleaner and, when you do, you buy it from one of their outlets rather than someone else.
posted by dg at 3:03 PM on December 28, 2014
Why is reading a Buzzfeed article, which someone was paid to produce and which is hosted on servers that cost money, without looking at the ads any different from grabbing a newspaper off a newsstand without paying?
Why don't they put that content behind a paywall or not serve it up if ad blocking software is detected? Otherwise, they are just putting newspapers on top of the box instead of in the box.
posted by juiceCake at 5:52 PM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why don't they put that content behind a paywall or not serve it up if ad blocking software is detected? Otherwise, they are just putting newspapers on top of the box instead of in the box.
posted by juiceCake at 5:52 PM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why is reading a Buzzfeed article, which someone was paid to produce and which is hosted on servers that cost money, without looking at the ads any different from grabbing a newspaper off a newsstand without paying?
Why is blocking the ads from appearing any different (from the producer's perspective) to just not looking at them? It's really no different to just going to the toilet during TV ad breaks.
posted by dg at 5:57 PM on December 28, 2014
Why is blocking the ads from appearing any different (from the producer's perspective) to just not looking at them? It's really no different to just going to the toilet during TV ad breaks.
posted by dg at 5:57 PM on December 28, 2014
I do not understand these people.
I understand them, they're parasites who want free shit.
Why is blocking the ads from appearing any different (from the producer's perspective) to just not looking at them? It's really no different to just going to the toilet during TV ad breaks.
If the advertiser is paying per impression then it means less money for the website operator because unlike TV ads they can tell when you aren't being shown them.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that blocking ads is "immoral" but so what? Especially if someone is doing it to get an ad-free experience without paying the small amount that is charged for an ad-free subscription I think it's shitty. Tipping servers at restaurants isn't strictly a legal or a moral obligation either, but isn't it in most cases the decent thing to do? Where does this mercenary attitude come from that you should feel free to extract as much free stuff as you can get away with for minimum or no cost, provided you can stay just inside the legal and moral envelope? These are people producing reportage, commentary, artwork, music, video, useful information, comedy and other good things that people like, why is it some game to try and nickel and dime them out of a living?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:03 PM on December 28, 2014
I understand them, they're parasites who want free shit.
Why is blocking the ads from appearing any different (from the producer's perspective) to just not looking at them? It's really no different to just going to the toilet during TV ad breaks.
If the advertiser is paying per impression then it means less money for the website operator because unlike TV ads they can tell when you aren't being shown them.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that blocking ads is "immoral" but so what? Especially if someone is doing it to get an ad-free experience without paying the small amount that is charged for an ad-free subscription I think it's shitty. Tipping servers at restaurants isn't strictly a legal or a moral obligation either, but isn't it in most cases the decent thing to do? Where does this mercenary attitude come from that you should feel free to extract as much free stuff as you can get away with for minimum or no cost, provided you can stay just inside the legal and moral envelope? These are people producing reportage, commentary, artwork, music, video, useful information, comedy and other good things that people like, why is it some game to try and nickel and dime them out of a living?
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:03 PM on December 28, 2014
Tipping servers at restaurants is only 'the decent thing to do' in places where employers refuse to pay their employees a reasonable amount for their effort and instead expect them to beg customers for money so they can eat themselves.
Blocking ads on the Internet is exactly the same as walking out of the room or switching channels while ads are on TV and has exactly the same impact on advertisers and content producers - sweet fuck all. An ad that never gets any clicks or sales is useless in any campaign and, given that I'm never going to click on the ads, showing it to me is a waste of time and money (to a minuscule degree, my money, because I have to pay the cost of the ad being displayed). But the proportion of viewers that actively avoid ads is always going to be so small that it really doesn't have much impact on clicks or sales, simply because there's no point in serving ads to people that won't respond to them. Companies like Google and Facebook know this and tolerate tools like Adblock because they know there's no point in pissing off people that are not customers anyway.
Any content producer that counts on every single person viewing their content also responding to an ad displayed with it is living in a fantasy land. Whether it's TV, Internet, newspaper, billboards or whatever, the sole intent is to reach people who are potential customers and ad companies spend huge sums working out where those potential customers eyeballs/ears are likely to be at any given time so they can serve ads that might entice them to part with money. Nobody wants to show ads to people who are never going to buy the product advertised, so showing ads to people who are not even going to look at them is pointless. The only reason this is such a problem in the Internet is that the cost of each ad displayed is negligible when compared with 'traditional' media, so a shotgun approach to ad campaigns has become the norm - 'just show it to everyone and we'll eventually hit the target'. If there was any kind of thought in most ads in the internet at all, I'd be much less likely to block them, but they are almost always spruiking products of no possible interest to me and doing so in a way that is intrusive. One exception is the ads here on MetaFilter, which are clearly targeted to the demographic and I display those ads because they are often for things I'm interested in.
I have no problem with content producers insisting on a fee to view their work. But the vast majority don't do that - the work is there for free viewing at any time. The vast majority wouldn't get seen at all under such a model, of course, because most of it isn't worth paying for and would never have been published in a market where significant investment was required to put works before the public.
posted by dg at 8:14 PM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Blocking ads on the Internet is exactly the same as walking out of the room or switching channels while ads are on TV and has exactly the same impact on advertisers and content producers - sweet fuck all. An ad that never gets any clicks or sales is useless in any campaign and, given that I'm never going to click on the ads, showing it to me is a waste of time and money (to a minuscule degree, my money, because I have to pay the cost of the ad being displayed). But the proportion of viewers that actively avoid ads is always going to be so small that it really doesn't have much impact on clicks or sales, simply because there's no point in serving ads to people that won't respond to them. Companies like Google and Facebook know this and tolerate tools like Adblock because they know there's no point in pissing off people that are not customers anyway.
Any content producer that counts on every single person viewing their content also responding to an ad displayed with it is living in a fantasy land. Whether it's TV, Internet, newspaper, billboards or whatever, the sole intent is to reach people who are potential customers and ad companies spend huge sums working out where those potential customers eyeballs/ears are likely to be at any given time so they can serve ads that might entice them to part with money. Nobody wants to show ads to people who are never going to buy the product advertised, so showing ads to people who are not even going to look at them is pointless. The only reason this is such a problem in the Internet is that the cost of each ad displayed is negligible when compared with 'traditional' media, so a shotgun approach to ad campaigns has become the norm - 'just show it to everyone and we'll eventually hit the target'. If there was any kind of thought in most ads in the internet at all, I'd be much less likely to block them, but they are almost always spruiking products of no possible interest to me and doing so in a way that is intrusive. One exception is the ads here on MetaFilter, which are clearly targeted to the demographic and I display those ads because they are often for things I'm interested in.
I have no problem with content producers insisting on a fee to view their work. But the vast majority don't do that - the work is there for free viewing at any time. The vast majority wouldn't get seen at all under such a model, of course, because most of it isn't worth paying for and would never have been published in a market where significant investment was required to put works before the public.
posted by dg at 8:14 PM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
Target doesn't know what to do with your data...."
Have they tried just dumping it on the internet and seeing what happens ?
Nevermind, I see that they did, in fact, do just that.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:17 PM on December 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
Have they tried just dumping it on the internet and seeing what happens ?
Nevermind, I see that they did, in fact, do just that.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:17 PM on December 28, 2014 [2 favorites]
Where does this mercenary attitude come from that you should feel free to extract as much free stuff as you can get away with
It comes from the mercenary attitude described in this very post. The part where advertisers refuse to honor my expressed Do Not Track preference, the one I put right in every single HTTP request. The one where I say "please do not track me in creepy ways" and they say "ha ha! we are advertisers! fuck you, we will track you whether you want us to or not. Unless you're European".
Advertisements are viruses. Advertising is biological warfare for user attention, to implant those viruses in my brain. My ad blocker and my cookie blocker and my Do Not Track headers and my privacy laws and my spam filter and my conscious decision on where to spend my attention are my immune system against those viruses.
There is absolutely no way that advertising networks can take the moral high ground on the Internet. I feel bad for websites (including this very one) that the only way they can make money is via ads. I also spent several of the best years of my career improving Google's ad network, for which I was handsomely compensated. I'll still block the shit out of every ad and tracking cookie and tracking beacon and browser fingerprint I can.
You know what the best feeling is? When you visit some scummy site like Gawker or Huffington Post or Buzzfeed or CNN and you watch the little blockers count up. 10, 20, 30 different ads and tracking beacons. All stopped. It's like taking food directly out of the mouths of the children of those noble journalists. It is a delicious feeling. I will feel a little sad when those sites go broke but at this point, fuck them. They're the ones that declared war.
posted by Nelson at 8:36 PM on December 28, 2014 [15 favorites]
It comes from the mercenary attitude described in this very post. The part where advertisers refuse to honor my expressed Do Not Track preference, the one I put right in every single HTTP request. The one where I say "please do not track me in creepy ways" and they say "ha ha! we are advertisers! fuck you, we will track you whether you want us to or not. Unless you're European".
Advertisements are viruses. Advertising is biological warfare for user attention, to implant those viruses in my brain. My ad blocker and my cookie blocker and my Do Not Track headers and my privacy laws and my spam filter and my conscious decision on where to spend my attention are my immune system against those viruses.
There is absolutely no way that advertising networks can take the moral high ground on the Internet. I feel bad for websites (including this very one) that the only way they can make money is via ads. I also spent several of the best years of my career improving Google's ad network, for which I was handsomely compensated. I'll still block the shit out of every ad and tracking cookie and tracking beacon and browser fingerprint I can.
You know what the best feeling is? When you visit some scummy site like Gawker or Huffington Post or Buzzfeed or CNN and you watch the little blockers count up. 10, 20, 30 different ads and tracking beacons. All stopped. It's like taking food directly out of the mouths of the children of those noble journalists. It is a delicious feeling. I will feel a little sad when those sites go broke but at this point, fuck them. They're the ones that declared war.
posted by Nelson at 8:36 PM on December 28, 2014 [15 favorites]
I've been thinking about this stuff a lot today. I've always been of the firm belief that a pervasive micropayment system is the only desirable end state that can come from this constant cat-and-mouse game, but that the producers and consumers can't agree on a price, so they don't ever meet in the middle. People willing to write for free is always going to put downward pressure on what sites can charge for content, so I understand why they'd try to squeeze every last penny they can out of the ad-supported model, but it's just not working. The tech provides plenty of areas to hide the ball -- wink-wink, we're not tracking you... wink-wink, I'm not blocking your ad... The sites stop rendering if they can detect your ad blocker, so the filters get smarter... Then sites beg users to please disable their ad blockers on their site, but then the click rates aren't good enough so the ads become more invasive... Now I'm starting to see these Google interstitial survey things that make me answer a question or two before I see the content.... Do the ad-blockers start randomly choosing answers to those now?
So yeah, micropayments is my thing. They're not going to solve all the problems, and it's going to be really hard for the content producers to accept the fact that their article is only worth $0.03 or $0.05 for me to read, maybe $0.25 for a long-form piece or whatever... But is it seriously possible that I'm paying more for that now with this Rube Goldberg mutual frustration machine known as ad-supported content? I'd love a browser plugin that calculated those numbers if the data sources were open enough to put together such a thing. I can't believe that the amount of ads I'm shown is bringing in more than I'd be willing to pay for the content, and if it is, well, someone in that chain is wasting their money.
Or how about a mechanism to let people buy their way out of the frustrating ad experience for maybe 1.5x what the ads bring in? These things exist on some sites, but it's an ad-hoc thing, where I feel like I should just be able to pay for all my content everywhere as long as my bank account can handle it, and then flip to ad-supported mode if my content spending is too high or whatever.
None of these are new ideas or anything, but I just feel like the current situation isn't in anyone's best interest, and if the content producers offer the choice to pay for the content, people will. I know I would, anyway.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:21 PM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
So yeah, micropayments is my thing. They're not going to solve all the problems, and it's going to be really hard for the content producers to accept the fact that their article is only worth $0.03 or $0.05 for me to read, maybe $0.25 for a long-form piece or whatever... But is it seriously possible that I'm paying more for that now with this Rube Goldberg mutual frustration machine known as ad-supported content? I'd love a browser plugin that calculated those numbers if the data sources were open enough to put together such a thing. I can't believe that the amount of ads I'm shown is bringing in more than I'd be willing to pay for the content, and if it is, well, someone in that chain is wasting their money.
Or how about a mechanism to let people buy their way out of the frustrating ad experience for maybe 1.5x what the ads bring in? These things exist on some sites, but it's an ad-hoc thing, where I feel like I should just be able to pay for all my content everywhere as long as my bank account can handle it, and then flip to ad-supported mode if my content spending is too high or whatever.
None of these are new ideas or anything, but I just feel like the current situation isn't in anyone's best interest, and if the content producers offer the choice to pay for the content, people will. I know I would, anyway.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:21 PM on December 28, 2014 [1 favorite]
I just feel like the current situation isn't in anyone's best interest
Nonsense. It's in the advertising industry's best interest.
Nice little market niche you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it.
posted by flabdablet at 9:49 PM on December 28, 2014
Nonsense. It's in the advertising industry's best interest.
Nice little market niche you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to... happen to it.
posted by flabdablet at 9:49 PM on December 28, 2014
Why the hell not? Now full disclosure I work in online ads...
Opinion discarded.
I was around before the ad-supported internet. It never needed you. It still doesn't need you.
Your best example is Buzzfeed? News flash: Buzzfeed is shit. Clickbait "journalism" is cultural cancer. Like casino gambling, it will be hard for most people to even comprehend how awful it is for our species until it's gone.
You know what the best feeling is? When you visit some scummy site like Gawker or Huffington Post or Buzzfeed or CNN and you watch the little blockers count up. 10, 20, 30 different ads and tracking beacons. All stopped.
I like you. You are hereby invited to my end of the world barbecue.
posted by clarknova at 10:46 PM on December 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
Opinion discarded.
I was around before the ad-supported internet. It never needed you. It still doesn't need you.
Your best example is Buzzfeed? News flash: Buzzfeed is shit. Clickbait "journalism" is cultural cancer. Like casino gambling, it will be hard for most people to even comprehend how awful it is for our species until it's gone.
You know what the best feeling is? When you visit some scummy site like Gawker or Huffington Post or Buzzfeed or CNN and you watch the little blockers count up. 10, 20, 30 different ads and tracking beacons. All stopped.
I like you. You are hereby invited to my end of the world barbecue.
posted by clarknova at 10:46 PM on December 28, 2014 [9 favorites]
Good morning! I'm sober now. I still think that was a fine rant last night.
But I do wish to clarify when I say "scummy sites like Buzzfeed" I'm referring to their ad technologies, not their content. Buzzfeed publishes a lot of clickbait but they also publish really good articles with original journalism. Random recent examples: We Asked 29 Tech Companies If Their Employees Can Access Your Personal Data and How College Wrestling Star "Tiger Mandingo" Became An HIV Scapegoat.
But note the URLs there, with the superfluous tracking bits at the end #.yf13z9P51 and #.mvBwPoQG0. I didn't put those there, Buzzfeed did, quite aggressively. They will use it to see that Nelson Minar was the one who posted this link to Metafilter and now Matt Haughey and Josh Millard and you are reading the article through that link on Metafilter. It is a form of surveillance. Ghostery tells me there's 9 trackers on those Buzzfeed articles: Audience Amplify, Datalogix, DoubleClick (Google), Facebook, Google Analytics, Omniture (Adobe), Quantcast, Scorecard Research, and Twitter. I do not wish to "participate" in those companies' activities and will use every tool available to me to avoid it.
I do feel bad taking the food out of the journalist's babies' mouths. Metafilter's own Mat Honan just joined Buzzfeed, he's a hell of a journalist and also a nice guy and actually has babies of his own. He deserves to get paid. I want to keep paying for journalism. But the industry has forced me into guerrilla warfare; I will use any tool I can lay my hands on.
tonycpsu; micropayments keep coming up as an alternative but it never quite works. A big problem is the ads bring in a lot of revenue per user, way more than people would be willing to pay in a lump sum. The New York Times paywall is a bit like micropayments; 10 free articles a month then you have to subscribe. I wonder how that's working out for them? Amazon still sells a Kindle at a $20 discount (20% of the price) if you're willing to see their ads, I wonder which people choose? Google makes as much as $200/user, I can't imagine everyone signing up to pay that amount directly to not see ads on searches.
posted by Nelson at 8:18 AM on December 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
But I do wish to clarify when I say "scummy sites like Buzzfeed" I'm referring to their ad technologies, not their content. Buzzfeed publishes a lot of clickbait but they also publish really good articles with original journalism. Random recent examples: We Asked 29 Tech Companies If Their Employees Can Access Your Personal Data and How College Wrestling Star "Tiger Mandingo" Became An HIV Scapegoat.
But note the URLs there, with the superfluous tracking bits at the end #.yf13z9P51 and #.mvBwPoQG0. I didn't put those there, Buzzfeed did, quite aggressively. They will use it to see that Nelson Minar was the one who posted this link to Metafilter and now Matt Haughey and Josh Millard and you are reading the article through that link on Metafilter. It is a form of surveillance. Ghostery tells me there's 9 trackers on those Buzzfeed articles: Audience Amplify, Datalogix, DoubleClick (Google), Facebook, Google Analytics, Omniture (Adobe), Quantcast, Scorecard Research, and Twitter. I do not wish to "participate" in those companies' activities and will use every tool available to me to avoid it.
I do feel bad taking the food out of the journalist's babies' mouths. Metafilter's own Mat Honan just joined Buzzfeed, he's a hell of a journalist and also a nice guy and actually has babies of his own. He deserves to get paid. I want to keep paying for journalism. But the industry has forced me into guerrilla warfare; I will use any tool I can lay my hands on.
tonycpsu; micropayments keep coming up as an alternative but it never quite works. A big problem is the ads bring in a lot of revenue per user, way more than people would be willing to pay in a lump sum. The New York Times paywall is a bit like micropayments; 10 free articles a month then you have to subscribe. I wonder how that's working out for them? Amazon still sells a Kindle at a $20 discount (20% of the price) if you're willing to see their ads, I wonder which people choose? Google makes as much as $200/user, I can't imagine everyone signing up to pay that amount directly to not see ads on searches.
posted by Nelson at 8:18 AM on December 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
The New York Times paywall is a bit like micropayments; 10 free articles a month then you have to subscribe. I wonder how that's working out for them?
They do still serve ads if you are a digital subscriber. A subscription pays for unlimited access, not an ad-free experience.
posted by peeedro at 8:39 AM on December 29, 2014
They do still serve ads if you are a digital subscriber. A subscription pays for unlimited access, not an ad-free experience.
posted by peeedro at 8:39 AM on December 29, 2014
A big problem is the ads bring in a lot of revenue per user, way more than people would be willing to pay in a lump sum
Are there any reliable up-to-date sources of data on how much they're pulling in? I've found some approximate numbers on how much each individual ad makes for certain ad services, but with sites using multiple services, rotating ads, etc. I have no concept at all of what, say, HuffPo or Gawker are making per visitor to one of their articles.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on December 29, 2014
Are there any reliable up-to-date sources of data on how much they're pulling in? I've found some approximate numbers on how much each individual ad makes for certain ad services, but with sites using multiple services, rotating ads, etc. I have no concept at all of what, say, HuffPo or Gawker are making per visitor to one of their articles.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on December 29, 2014
To be clear: I'm not saying I don't believe you that the ads make more, but I also don't know that anyone's actually tried to roll out a real micropayment solution, so I'm having trouble understanding the case against it on an apples-to-apples basis. Not only do some paywalls like NYT keep the ads, but a paywall isn't really like micropayments at all, because the cost is per-site, not per-article, so there's a lock-in effect where you'll read more on the sites you subscribe to instead of simply paying per story.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:09 AM on December 29, 2014
posted by tonycpsu at 9:09 AM on December 29, 2014
I think the flaw in a widespread micropayment system is that you would need to set something automatic up on every site, whether it's PayPal or a credit card or something for it to work in a seamless way. There's no way people are going to go through a payment gateway every time they read an article just to pay their $0.20. Even the barrier of having to click on a 'yes, I want to read this and authorise a micropayment for it' acknowledgement would get old very fast. Plus, I don't know if there's anything yet available that deals with the transaction fees issue, meaning that the micropayment has to incorporate varied fees, depending on the location of the reader and other factors, making the whole process complicated and expensive.
For micropayments to work, there would need to be a single service that allowed users to set up their payment details once, then easily 'subscribe' to a site, authorising that site to collect a micropayment from the service every time you read an item. I imagine this would have to be a pre-paid service where you top up a balance of $x for use in delivering micropayments and that it would have to be widely adopted by content providers to be at all useful.
Of course, the service would need to track your movements across the Web to make sure it was collecting all the payments it should ...
posted by dg at 12:27 PM on December 29, 2014
For micropayments to work, there would need to be a single service that allowed users to set up their payment details once, then easily 'subscribe' to a site, authorising that site to collect a micropayment from the service every time you read an item. I imagine this would have to be a pre-paid service where you top up a balance of $x for use in delivering micropayments and that it would have to be widely adopted by content providers to be at all useful.
Of course, the service would need to track your movements across the Web to make sure it was collecting all the payments it should ...
posted by dg at 12:27 PM on December 29, 2014
I think the flaw in a widespread micropayment system is that you would need to set something automatic up on every site, whether it's PayPal or a credit card or something for it to work in a seamless way.
Just like you don't have to outrun the bear, only the slowest member of your party, micropayments wouldn't have to be seamless, they'd just have to be better than the status quo of ad-supported content. Which is kind of terrible already, with many sites still forcing pagination to get ad impressions up, large sections of the page taken up by the ads, etc.
There's no way people are going to go through a payment gateway every time they read an article just to pay their $0.20. Even the barrier of having to click on a 'yes, I want to read this and authorise a micropayment for it' acknowledgement would get old very fast.
The authorization acknowledgement could be as simple as one click after you've read the first paragraph or two, because with the stakes so low, refunds for "oops I clicked when I didn't mean to" wouldn't be a big deal. Plenty of sites already do this kind of "below the fold" thing, even ones without a paywall. Just have a simple "click to read the rest for $0.10" or whatever and the rest of the content gets pulled in via an asynchronous request.
For micropayments to work, there would need to be a single service that allowed users to set up their payment details once, then easily 'subscribe' to a site, authorising that site to collect a micropayment from the service every time you read an item. I imagine this would have to be a pre-paid service where you top up a balance of $x for use in delivering micropayments and that it would have to be widely adopted by content providers to be at all useful.
Sure, but Paypal already exists, and many companies are starting to get into the payment processing thing now, including Apple. I can't see an ad company like Google getting very excited about the idea of an alternative to ads, but if enough of the others do it, maybe it could catch on. I think the transaction fees could be bundled by whoever runs the micropayment service into a monthly charge against the payment method -- don't services like Square already do this to keep fees down?
I acknowledge there are obstacles, but the status quo is so horrible that I feel like this sector is ripe for a major shift.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on December 29, 2014
Just like you don't have to outrun the bear, only the slowest member of your party, micropayments wouldn't have to be seamless, they'd just have to be better than the status quo of ad-supported content. Which is kind of terrible already, with many sites still forcing pagination to get ad impressions up, large sections of the page taken up by the ads, etc.
There's no way people are going to go through a payment gateway every time they read an article just to pay their $0.20. Even the barrier of having to click on a 'yes, I want to read this and authorise a micropayment for it' acknowledgement would get old very fast.
The authorization acknowledgement could be as simple as one click after you've read the first paragraph or two, because with the stakes so low, refunds for "oops I clicked when I didn't mean to" wouldn't be a big deal. Plenty of sites already do this kind of "below the fold" thing, even ones without a paywall. Just have a simple "click to read the rest for $0.10" or whatever and the rest of the content gets pulled in via an asynchronous request.
For micropayments to work, there would need to be a single service that allowed users to set up their payment details once, then easily 'subscribe' to a site, authorising that site to collect a micropayment from the service every time you read an item. I imagine this would have to be a pre-paid service where you top up a balance of $x for use in delivering micropayments and that it would have to be widely adopted by content providers to be at all useful.
Sure, but Paypal already exists, and many companies are starting to get into the payment processing thing now, including Apple. I can't see an ad company like Google getting very excited about the idea of an alternative to ads, but if enough of the others do it, maybe it could catch on. I think the transaction fees could be bundled by whoever runs the micropayment service into a monthly charge against the payment method -- don't services like Square already do this to keep fees down?
I acknowledge there are obstacles, but the status quo is so horrible that I feel like this sector is ripe for a major shift.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:41 PM on December 29, 2014
The authorization acknowledgement could be as simple as one click after you've read the first paragraph or two, because with the stakes so low, refunds for "oops I clicked when I didn't mean to" wouldn't be a big deal. Plenty of sites already do this kind of "below the fold" thing, even ones without a paywall. Just have a simple "click to read the rest for $0.10" or whatever and the rest of the content gets pulled in via an asynchronous request.
Wow, I would love something this. I wouldn't want to pre-authorize "charge me for any article I access" because I Pocket a ludicrous number of articles people have linked to, many of which I don't wind up reading more than the beginning of. But to be able to read part of it, then with one click indicate "I want to finish reading it and want to financially support it being available" would be great.
I'd need some kind of a dashboard so I could track how much I was nickel-and-diming away in micropayments, of course. "What? HOW much did I read this month? That's it — back to the library, my budget can't handle this!"
posted by Lexica at 12:51 PM on December 29, 2014
Wow, I would love something this. I wouldn't want to pre-authorize "charge me for any article I access" because I Pocket a ludicrous number of articles people have linked to, many of which I don't wind up reading more than the beginning of. But to be able to read part of it, then with one click indicate "I want to finish reading it and want to financially support it being available" would be great.
I'd need some kind of a dashboard so I could track how much I was nickel-and-diming away in micropayments, of course. "What? HOW much did I read this month? That's it — back to the library, my budget can't handle this!"
posted by Lexica at 12:51 PM on December 29, 2014
Incidentally, does anyone know what the state of the art is in user tracking, aside from cookies and flash cookies? I imagine they must store IMEI and similar for mobile users, right?
I'm convinced there is some non-cookie thing that is being used. Whenever I log on to Facebook from a completely new location (e.g., brand new computer or virtual machine), it puts me through the ringer to identify me before I can log in, even after I've entered a password. And then never again on that machine, even if I consistently log in solely via Incognito windows. How are they doing this?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 7:41 PM on December 29, 2014
I'm convinced there is some non-cookie thing that is being used. Whenever I log on to Facebook from a completely new location (e.g., brand new computer or virtual machine), it puts me through the ringer to identify me before I can log in, even after I've entered a password. And then never again on that machine, even if I consistently log in solely via Incognito windows. How are they doing this?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 7:41 PM on December 29, 2014
There are many other tracking technologies. My first guess is Facebook is using localStorage. That lets sites store a couple of megabytes of data in your browser, accessible only via Javascript serve from that site. It's a lot like cookies but without the HTTP overhead. That's the legit HTML5 way to do user identification. Sleazier options include various kinds of fingerprinting and other nefarious tricks. Mobile is a whole new world with your cell phone provider colluding with advertisers to give them access to your unique identity.
posted by Nelson at 7:48 PM on December 29, 2014
posted by Nelson at 7:48 PM on December 29, 2014
Canvas Fingerprinting is probably Joey's nemesis.
posted by localroger at 7:49 PM on December 29, 2014
posted by localroger at 7:49 PM on December 29, 2014
There are many other tracking technologies. My first guess is Facebook is using localStorage.
This made me log back into Facebook for the first time in months just to see if it was true. So thanks for that.
It seems while they DO use a little sessionStorage (which only lasts as long as the browser is open) they don't use localStorage at all. Which is in keeping with what we know about thier methodology.
They know who you are by your session ID, and all your REST reqs will be logged server side. And they'll want to control the content you see based on thier very latest model of you. So there's little need for them to cache data on your client.
Surprisingly few sites use localStorage and this is probably the reason. Why ask users to store data when you want to control every aspect of it?
posted by clarknova at 11:23 PM on December 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
This made me log back into Facebook for the first time in months just to see if it was true. So thanks for that.
It seems while they DO use a little sessionStorage (which only lasts as long as the browser is open) they don't use localStorage at all. Which is in keeping with what we know about thier methodology.
They know who you are by your session ID, and all your REST reqs will be logged server side. And they'll want to control the content you see based on thier very latest model of you. So there's little need for them to cache data on your client.
Surprisingly few sites use localStorage and this is probably the reason. Why ask users to store data when you want to control every aspect of it?
posted by clarknova at 11:23 PM on December 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
For micropayments to work, there would need to be a single service that allowed users to set up their payment details once, then easily 'subscribe' to a site, authorising that site to collect a micropayment from the service every time you read an item.
It should not be beyond the wit of Visa or Mastercard to create something like this.
posted by flabdablet at 11:52 PM on December 29, 2014
It should not be beyond the wit of Visa or Mastercard to create something like this.
posted by flabdablet at 11:52 PM on December 29, 2014
does anyone know what the state of the art is in user tracking, aside from cookies and flash cookies?
Are you aware of panopticlick?
posted by flabdablet at 12:09 AM on December 30, 2014
Are you aware of panopticlick?
posted by flabdablet at 12:09 AM on December 30, 2014
Thanks, clarknova, my localStorage speculation was uninformed. FWIW, both Facebook and Google have fairly sophisticated "have you we seen you on this browser before?" technologies to protect your security at login. It's an example of beneficial user tracking, it provides significant extra security and convenience (sort of a lightweight kind of two factor). I've never seen it work through Incognito mode before, and that should rule out many tracking technologies (including localStorage, my mistake.) Some sort of browser fingerprinting (including canvas) would still work, but I'd be a bit surprised if they were using it. Maybe it's as simple as your IP address?
posted by Nelson at 7:33 AM on December 30, 2014
posted by Nelson at 7:33 AM on December 30, 2014
Are you aware of panopticlick?
I am, and I have hit that page several times over the years (interestingly my mobile browser is far less unique than any of my desktop ones). But it has never been clear to me whether this is actually in use anywhere, or just a conceptual demonstration of browser fingerprinting by EFF.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:19 AM on December 30, 2014
I am, and I have hit that page several times over the years (interestingly my mobile browser is far less unique than any of my desktop ones). But it has never been clear to me whether this is actually in use anywhere, or just a conceptual demonstration of browser fingerprinting by EFF.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:19 AM on December 30, 2014
I've never seen it work through Incognito mode before... Maybe it's as simple as your IP address?
Possibly, though I use the computer in question between multiple IP addresses. Come to think of it, I mostly bounce between two places, though, so it could just have both of them on record. Hmmm.
Thanks also for the pointer to canvas.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:23 AM on December 30, 2014
Possibly, though I use the computer in question between multiple IP addresses. Come to think of it, I mostly bounce between two places, though, so it could just have both of them on record. Hmmm.
Thanks also for the pointer to canvas.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:23 AM on December 30, 2014
« Older I'll admit my brains started leaking out of my... | Kids Only Please. No Rough Ridin' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:53 PM on December 27, 2014 [8 favorites]