NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Ars Technica: Why ad blocking is devastating to the sites you love (Lauren Weinstein)
David Berry wrote: > Ars Technica: Why ad blocking is devastating to the sites you love > > http://bit.ly/crtGSB (ars technica) > > I agree with their analysis. You may recall my take on this issue two > and half years ago or so: > > "Blocking Web Ads -- And Paying the Piper": > > http://bit.ly/5meCbq (Lauren's Blog) > > --Lauren-- > NNSquad Moderator > > ************************************** > > What about privacy issues? How many website-placed ads indirectly track > your browsing history by indirectly tracking which ads you view (as they > are designed to be unique to the page in which they are placed, so the > proper viewing gets paid)? Ad conglomerates and central ad serving > constitutes a major threat to the privacy of a web user than advertising > in any other medium. I don't block ads because I think they're > disgusting, virulent, useless, or obtrusive; I block them because they > watch everything I do. Ads have finally, with the Internet, reached > that Orwellian state wherein the monitor watches you. ... I'm glad it's not just me. In general, I agree that ad-blockers subvert the advertising model inherent in various publishers' revenue models, undermining (in small or large ways) their abilities to provide free content. Yet, despite my acceptance of the validity of those arguments, I still use ad-blockers now and then. Here are two reasons: - From February, 2008, until March, 2009, I worked for a startup that was building a back-end service for optimized online advertising. I know, from behind-the-scenes personal experience, how many cookies ads attempt to load to my browser, how the ad networks attempt to correlate those cookies (and other data, like IP addresses, browsing habits, etc.) with other demographic information, and the high dollar values associated with the typical ad campaign. That ad networks do this should surprise no one; this kind of information is the bread and butter of the advertising industry, after all. But, these days, we can be much more granular online than we ever could via Nielson and Arbitron. Sometimes, I prefer to be a little more anonymous than that. If there were an easy way to wipe out all my ad-related cookies, without also wiping out the useful authentication cookies for sites where I must log in, I'd have less of a problem with the cookies. But given the sheer volume of cookies dumped into my browser, identifying just the ad demographic-tracking ones is functionally impractical. - Lately, the trend in online ads has been toward flashy ads: ads the flicker, ads that move, ads that work very hard to draw the reader's eye. In many ways, they're more like TV ads than print ads. However, most web sites are more like print media than TV. Unlike televisions, these flashing, distracting ads aren't interleaved with the content; they exist alongside the content. Visually distracting ads make reading copy very difficult. Reading an article is significantly more challenging when a flashing, color-shifting ad on the site keeps distracting my eyes from the text. We're hard-wired to notice, and have our attentions diverted, by that kind of peripheral movement. If an ad has sound, I can turn my sound volume down; rarely, however, can I pause the visuals on a highly distracting, visual-only advertisment. Worse, some of them are wired to Javascript event handlers so that, as I scroll, the ads follow me down the page. Imagine reading a magazine and having some visually loud, flashing ad follow you every time you turn the page. That's essentially what's happening in that case. Privacy matters, and the ad networks are going far beyond the data that was ever available to television and print advertisers. Site usability also matters (though I'll admit that blocking ads on a web site, merely to increase my perception of its usability, feels less defensible to me). -- Brian Clapper, http://www.clapper.org/bmc/