Re: Dear Advertising Scum. STFU, GTFO, FOAD, & HAND.
The A3 goes between London and my beloved Portsmouth actually!
I love Pompey, its my favourite of all the run down inner cities!
Randall Rothenberg, president and CEO of industry group the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), thinks the Mozilla Foundation's policy on third-party cookies is way out of line, and he's taken to the web with a 4,000-word screed essay to make his case. It was in February that Mozilla first said that a future version of its …
The A3 goes between London and my beloved Portsmouth actually!
I love Pompey, its my favourite of all the run down inner cities!
Oh and P.S.
I prefer Party Rings to Third Party Cookies so eff you adverscum!
There should only be one big naval base on the south coast beginning with 'P' - I bloody knew it went to Portsmouth, dunno why I wrote Plymouth :/
Cut out all the euphemisms, will you. What do you REALLY think?
I think its done deliberately to confuse American tourists - a bit like how you can get a train from Norwich to both Liverpool Street station and Liverpool Lime Street!
Its quite clever when you think about it - all those unnecessary train journeys by foreigners add quite a bit to our economy once you add them all up! British inventiveness at its best!
And I thought "go fuck yourself with something hard and sandpapery then do the human race an IQ-raising favour and jump off a billboard and die" was taking it too far!
Wrote :- "I don't watch advertisements on tv, because as soon as they begin, I hit MUTE & leave the room."
Totally agree, except this bit. I record it and skip the adverts altogether. "
OK to record films, but not always practicable otherwise. Things like sports coverage I want to see in real time. I mute the adverts and read a book that I keep to hand. It is suprising how much reading you get through / lifetime the adverts would have wasted.
..without 3rd party cookies, they won't be able to custom-tailor our advertising experiences to our needs. Instead they'll be reduced to icky general ads for Viagra, diploma mills and money making 'opportunities.'
Would you ENJOY that?!
The Internet Advertising industry brought in on themselves. While there are sites I accept advertising from, I will *not* allow J Random Site to beam possible malware-infested advertising at me. But the industry has rejected any sort of attempt at minimising the impact of their rogue elements. Result? *Everyone* in the industry gets the finger.
Controls should of course be accessible to selectively turn on the more advanced features needed to gain access to some sites.
"[Third-party cookies] have been part of the way Internet advertising has been delivered, measured, analyzed, optimized, and compensated for more than 15 years," he railed. "Were they to be embargoed tomorrow, billions of dollars in Internet advertising and hundreds of thousands of jobs dependent on it would disappear."
In the same way heroin has provided countless employment opportunities and been a part of the human ecosystem for many years. Were it to become embargoed tomorrow billions of dollars in drug manufacture and distribution and hundreds of thousands of dependent dealers would disappear.
Just because it makes money that alone doesn't make ethical, right or desirable. Three words that will never appear next to Mr Rothenberg's name unless it's under the heading "What is Mr Rothenberg not?"
In fairness to Heroin, it has medical applications that are very handy indeed...
Funny I thought it was the sociopathetic spying and data mining advertisers that were responsible for ruining the internet and making me unplug more often...This same type of guy was responsible for the Net 2.0 advertising model, with treasures like Flash Cookies… ETAGs… and hidden Cached Sessions.... see ‘Hulu’ tracking scandal etc….
Rothenberg had an Apocalypse Cow.
"[Third-party cookies] have been part of the way Internet advertising has been delivered, measured, analyzed, optimized, and compensated for more than 15 years,"
And customers have been maddened by their existence, invasion of privacy, and consumption of computer resources since their inception.
Blind, mass market advertising was the way of the marketing world for decades. If precedent is what he wishes to go on, then he should support a complete ban on internet advertising.
...they all operate advertising platforms. Apple has iAd on iOS devices. Microsoft acquired at least one platform (Atlas??? name escapes me right now). And Google, well need I say mor?
"Rothenberg said the problem boils down to Mozilla's 'anti-business value system.'"
I'd be more sympathetic to Mr Rotherberg's complaint about Mozilla's "anti-business value system" if only it wasn't in defense of such a shitty business.
""anti-business value system". I rather think he means open-source. If Adblock-plus didn't exist, I'd have to write it. If Mozilla didn't support plug-ins, I'd have to fork it.
If someone pasted adverts on your garden wall, you'd be right to be annoyed and the fly-poster would be breaking the law. Why is pasting adverts all over my screen any different? (Apart from some of them being malware-insertion attempts ... akin to pasting with toxin-laced glue? )
Once, someone wrote an app to sign up a spammer's home address to every source of physical junk snail-mail the algorithm could find. About a hundredweight per day! Not sure about the legalities, but burying the bastard in his own effluent is a lovely thought.
Given that the current situation is that the vast majority of the internet is ad-funded, exactly what is "Plan B"?
You'll need to have one, unless your sole aim is to tear it all down and leave it in bits on the floor.
Anyone got any constructive ideas, or is "Ads is business, business is bad, ugh, hit with rock" the sum total of the argument on the other side of the fence here?
As far as businesses are concerned - they need the Plan B. How they fund their on-line operations is their own affair.
As far as us sheep are concerned, I guess it's valid to ask what our Plan B is for the situation where free, useful/entertaining sites vanish because they can no longer be funded. I guess we do something less frivolous with our time.
You have asked a fair question, though. I don't think the death of advertising would tear down the internet, but it would certainly change it significantly, in particular leading to a steep rise in subscription-only sites and cooperative ventures (vs solo self-interest ones). On the plus side, it might get rid of a lot of the crap sites out there which exist solely on advertising income derived from scraping others, which would be a bonus.
You talk as if it's all-or-nothing, when there's many shades to choose from. Non-intrusive adverts that don't phone home, run scripts, risk my network security and/or follow me? I'm not going to mind that any more than I mind a poster on a bus shelter.
If advertisers didn't take liberties, we'd not want to take them back.
Plan B. Stop all intrusive advertizing. Work with Google so if I want to find out about your product, I can. Work on your product, so happy customers will recommend you to their friends. In particular, make sure that your post-sales sustomer support is A1. Nothing makes me more likely to buy than hearing from a trusted third party that when something went wrong, it was put right with an absolute minimum of hassle!
My philosophy is always to be a buyer, never to be a sellee. Any attempt to pressurize me into buying just annoys me. Charities that employ chuggers get written out of my will, if they were ever mentioned. Spam of any sort gets your organisation added to my buy-last list. And so on. You ought to be happy I can use Adblock-plus. If I had to mentally filter those adverts, a lot more of you would be on my mental do-not-touch-with-a-bargepole list!
I can think of an organisation that espouses most if not all of the above. It's called John Lewis. It's rather successful.
'Given that the current situation is that the vast majority of the internet is ad-funded, exactly what is "Plan B"?'
Simple. Let the corporate morons simply hand over to "the vast majority of the Internet" the money they now spend on advertising. It won't make any difference to anyone who matters.
Incidentally, I question your premise. As far as I know, most Internet sites are funded either by the corporations or the individuals who own them. It costs little enough to run a modest Web site, and if you want a bigger one there are plenty of ways of making it pay for itself without advert-whoring.
Non-annoying, privacy-respecting, adverts that are screened for malware before delivery.
With no fucking audio unless I ask for it
If advertisers stuck to that I wouldn't bother to block them.
My machine, my computer, my disk, my paid-for connection, my electricity, my rules.
I pay for my end of the link, you pay for your end of the link. I do NOT pay for your end of the link any more than you pay for MY end of the link.
HERE HERE. And their Lamborghini's and Ferraris and there heated swimming pools....blah blah blah.
C'mon, man ... that was beneath you.
My telephone too when it comes to telesales, and my time. I live in Italy and, although I understand and speak Italian just fine, I always speak to Italian telesales callers in English. And I always have to explain that it's my phone and they are calling me, on my time, to sell me something, and that I have no obligation to respond to them in a language of their choice. At least I get to have some fun while they are interrupting my day.
If I still lived in the UK I'd probably respond to telesales calls in Italian. A foreign language has many uses.
"C'mon, man ... that was beneath you"
A bad, snarky pun... beneath a Reg writer?
Uhm, you *have* been reading the articles, right?
This article has inspired me to wipe my cookies, disable third party cookies and install Ghostery.
Shouldn't there be user protection against cookie trackers which is turned on by default?
It clearly doesn't enter his head that this will only be a success because people will adopt it because they don't WANT to be "advertised at".
MY household, like many others, pay extra to one of the major TV players or another mainly for the ability to schedule our own viewing and, bar sports/live events, SKIP THE ADVERTS.
If we enjoyed, or desired adverts this would not be the case.
It is possible that he is afraid that all those people that don't know about ad-blocking will get "on by default" blocking and suddenly realise how nice the internet is without it!
You pay advertisers not to advertise to you?
The old business models are the best - that's how street entertainers evolved.
Randall Rothenberg, the guy you will love to hate...
There was a time, when the Internet was to exchange knowledge, to share ideas, to communicate. It was so long ago it sounds now like legendary times.
Thanks to people like Mr. Rothenberg, The internet became a giant marketplace where snake oil vendors try to force their sh*t through our throat and sell us, sell us and sell us again their junk ad nauseam.
If I want to buy something I will go in a store. I have no need to live into one 24 hours a day surrounded by ads trying to convince me I'm the best and I deserve to get the next Iphone 12.
To put it nicely, Haista vittu.
"The internet became a giant marketplace where snake oil vendors try to force their sh*t through our throat and sell us, sell us and sell us again their junk ad nauseam."
That reminds me of a remarkably similar comment I remembering reading about - from 90 years ago. It was uttered by H.G. Wells, and he was talking about how wireless would soon descend into the depths of commercial pollution. How right he was!
'Mozilla, Rothenberg wrote, exists "inside a cocoon spun by techno-libertarians and academic elites who believe in liberty and freedom for all, as long as they get to decide the definitions of liberty and freedom."'
If you don't like our cocoon, stay out of it and advertise elsewhere.
I don't know if the Web is a "cocoon" - is there an RFC for cocoons? - but it was spun by some techno-libertarians whom I respect immensely - and to whom I am very grateful.
I do know that TBL, for instance, does believe in "liberty and freedom" [sic] for all, and that he DOESN'T want to decide the definitions. Actually, any honest person understands what freedom means.
The Web was designed to make it easy for all people, everywhere, to communicate about whatever they wish. One thing it was NOT designed for was to give freeloading parasites who contributed nothing to it a chance to enrich themselves without effort.
You could accept, with grateful humility, your good fortune to have sold this much snake oil already and give the yacht a polish.
what's wrong with that, punk? :D
OK 2 scenarios, your on a limited data usage! lets say 500mb a month and the pointless adverts that flood your way cost you up to 100mb a month who pays for that! Scenario 2! your bidding on eBay on a moderately slow internet connection and the ad's as ever begin to load first. Your outbid as it took too long to load due to advertising. What about the small high street shop that was driven out of business by internet advertising. Online advertising is in no doubt part of the world recession due to people buying cheap goods from China. Banks then mishandling investments just tipped the balance. Google, Amazon all feed on greed. I use no script to block ad frames...they simply don't appear on my screen.Advertising is money for nothing.....who benefits to ad's that have absolutely nothing to do with you regardless of targeted cookies...not bloody you matey that's for sure. I have never in 20 years of internet ever once been influenced by an ad on the screen. In fact I find nearly all ad's very much American and heavily biased towards Americans (like the majority of the internet is) . Cookies are crapoware you wouldn't install a virus WOULD YOU....why have third party cookies.
This bloke doesn't half remind me of Jack Lewis. For more info:
"Guardian" and "technology" on the same line!
And the adman thinks that commerce invented the internet ?
While much of the development of the net has been down to porn and other greed merchants, part of what makes using the net so irritating (waiting for slow ad pages to load before you can see editorial) is the very commerce which claims to support it.
Personally, I'd categorise cookie tracking and pester advertising on web pages as essentially in the same category as phishing, spam, ransomware and stalking.
Basically, commerce has hijacked the internet and anyone who helps resist that is to be commended.
I have two pertinent quotes I would like to share with you:
"Kill yourself, seriously." - Bill Hicks
"F*** you, I won't do what you tell me." - Rage Against the Machine
P.S. Can I have a list of your clients so I can tell them I won't be buying any more of their products as long as they do business with you?
Where does Randall Rothenberg think advertising revenue comes from in the first place? It isn't magicked out of thin air or donated by benevolent companies from some secret store of cash. The money ultimately comes from end customers, and part of the purchase cost goes on trying to get them to spend more money. The advertising industry has a strange sense of entitlement: "we want your attention so we can try to sell you things", but as a consumer I reserve the right to invite them to go forth and multiply if it's something I know I don't want and certainly don't want to pay for.
I would happily put up with a degree of simple advertising on some sites, as long as it doesn't get in the way of what I'm doing.
I don't object to street posters advertising stuff at me. I *would* object if they started putting barriers across the pavement that I had to read before I could carry on walking.
I started using ad blockers when web pages started pushing stupid flashing banners, pop ups and other equally intrusive crap in front of me that stopped me getting on with what I needed to do.
I don't mind paying for goods and services if I know the price and agree it.
I dodge cookies because they are a form of undisclosed charge. In effect they are taking payment for whatever they provide, good or bad, by picking our digital pockets and taking our personal data.
Isn't that rather like "anti-Satan values"? Or perhaps "pro-human being values"?
Business is not a bad thing in and of itself. You'd probably find life quite uncomfortable without it, seeing as you would lack little perks like electricity, communication, running water, medical care, and so forth; additionally you would probably spend the vast majority of your time trying to grow enough food to stay alive. (Buying food from someone else, of course, is right out, because that would be supporting an evil satanic anti-people business!)
I get what you're saying here, but it's unfair to tar *business* with the brush meant for *marketers*. They're different things.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018