Adblock sold to "unknown buyer"

[chas_m]

Think of it this way - I was with someone the other day who was looking at shoes online. Moments later, an ad was visible on her Facebook account for the very store and product that she was just looking at. This, in my eyes, is deserving of thoroughly ruthless blocking.

Understanding that I am not defending all ads, I can't help but be curious why you think that needs blocking. Surely an ad based on what she was looking for is exactly what the Google and Facebook model of ads were created to do -- try and serve ads that are geared to the user's interest and thus are more likely to be clicked on? That they do this isn't exactly secret.

Again, I'm not big on tracking and other types of user profiling that results in this sort of thing, but if one is going to have ads -- surely ads that align with the interests of the users are better than "neutral" ads that are likely to be ineffective? Personally, I prefer the idea that if you're on a site concerned with a specific interest, that the ads are delivered based on the site's focus rather than from data-mining ... but that doesn't work for general-interest sites, so how else are they to serve ads that might actually appeal to the user?

Just to be clear: I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

 

[lclev]

I never meant to start a fire storm with this topic. My issues revolve around:

1. Ads that load and start playing sound (takes up band width and can be a pain if you are trying to play another video on the page.)
2. Tons of animated ads that once again take time load on my slow connection - and yes I block flash but that does not get them all.
3. Ads that tell me I "left something in my shopping cart at my previous site". That is how I comparison shop and I did not need reminding.
4. So many ads that it practically dwarfs the site and you can hardly find what you are looking for or reading about.
5. Inappropriate content ads - and I know this is subjective - but I don't want to see things that "objectify" a person - and that is all I will say about that.

I do understand the need to advertise and realize it is necessary but some have gotten so elaborate in their efforts to grab my attention that they suck up what little bandwidth I have.

Now if you can figure out how to get me fiber optic cable???? ;D

Lisa

 

[Slydude]

My sentiments exactly Lisa. Let's put aside objectification issues for a moment, since there might be quite a bit of disagreement on how far an ad can go before reaching that point. It's the auto starting audio/video that bothers me. Couple that with the fact that some sites have so many badly placed social media links and the site becomes unbearable. In worse case scenarios the content I want is dwarfed ads/Facebook links etc.

@Chas_m I understand why targeted ads are better in some ways than others but there is a downside. From time to time I help friends out by researching gear they know very little about. Sometimes it's things I need / might buy but often it is for things I own or won't be buying soon. Next thing I know I'm inundated with ads/emails for things I have no intention of buying any time soon.

 

[Rod]

So would it be fair to say it may be better to block trackers?
I already use Ghostery and I am constantly fine tuning it to prevent instances of the examples already mentioned. I don't like finding an ad of Facebook for a product I just viewed on a web page via an email link. That just feels like I have someone looking over my shoulder, creepy. Of course I know that we are all being watched in a way but I don't need it thrown in my face in the form of ads.
So to go back to Lisa's topic, what are "Acceptable" ads? I'm willing to wait an see.

 

[Rod]

Adblock sold to "unknown buyer"

And by the way there are iOS versions of AdBlock in the App Store plus a number of other makes currently available.
My expectations are that they will greatly reduce the number of free versions of apps whose only means of motivating people to buy the full version are pop up ads. I am quite happy with the free full feature versions of some apps and if I have to close a few ads that's fine because I don't use them that often. If my only choice was to buy I would probably have less apps.

 

[chas_m]

So to go back to Lisa's topic, what are "Acceptable" ads? I'm willing to wait an see.

As I noted in one of my previous posts, broadly speaking "acceptable" ads are non-animated, non-autoplaying, mostly text-based ads of the sort The Deck serves up.

Perhaps this article would clarify: http://digiday.com/publishers/low-t...ocking-definitely-paying-everyone-elses-sins/

 

[McBie]

Without having a discussion on " acceptable " and " non acceptable " ads, I will be having extra attention on the behaviour of LittleSnitch !
My 2 cents.
People want to know what you look at, not what you are not looking at.

Cheers ... McBie

 

[Lifeisabeach]

chas_m, I am aware sites make money with ads and I understand your points. I have issues when an extension says they will block all ads and then change to what they deem "acceptable" - which I interpret as profitable. Give me an option to opt out and I am good with that - but let me know, which looks like adblock is supposedly going to do.

There is an opt-out option. It says so right there in that huge screencap that pm-r provided.

I ended up switching to uBlock myself as soon as the word hit that AdBlock was sold. There was a lot of speculation about who that was, but having read horror stories of developers selling extensions that they developed to companies that only wanted to exploit their popularity by delivering ads, I jumped ship immediately. I would have gone with uBlock Origin, but it's not available for Safari. Although.... now that I think about it... the open source BlockParty can be compiled for desktop Safari as well as for iOS. I wonder how they compare.

 

[vansmith]

Understanding that I am not defending all ads, I can't help but be curious why you think that needs blocking. Surely an ad based on what she was looking for is exactly what the Google and Facebook model of ads were created to do -- try and serve ads that are geared to the user's interest and thus are more likely to be clicked on? That they do this isn't exactly secret.

Again, I'm not big on tracking and other types of user profiling that results in this sort of thing, but if one is going to have ads -- surely ads that align with the interests of the users are better than "neutral" ads that are likely to be ineffective? Personally, I prefer the idea that if you're on a site concerned with a specific interest, that the ads are delivered based on the site's focus rather than from data-mining ... but that doesn't work for general-interest sites, so how else are they to serve ads that might actually appeal to the user?

Just to be clear: I'm not challenging, I'm asking.

Because I don't want people tracking my browsing habits as I crawl the web. I don't really care if it's relevant - I don't need to be told what's relevant and I sure don't want that derived from my personal browsing.

So would it be fair to say it may be better to block trackers?

Depends on your issue with ads. If you don't like ads at all, an adblocker is the way to go. If you just don't like being tracked, then something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery will do the job.

 

[pm-r]

… … ...
Depends on your issue with ads. If you don't like ads at all, an adblocker is the way to go. If you just don't like being tracked, then something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery will do the job.

Hmmm…??? I usually use AdBlock and Ghosterly but it strikes me as odd the number of emails I get offering me deals on a lot of the products I was recently searching for. Seems a bit odd.

Anyway, at times it can be helpful and I get offered choices I had missed.

Now, I'd be really thankful if someone could tell me how to stop the stupid repeating video ads that appear on some sites like BBC News that repeat with every new video story one goes to. They got so annoying I hardly even bother with such sites any more so their ads are lost on me anyway.

 

[pigoo3]

Like almost anything in life…it's about balance. What exactly is the right balance for something is always a tug of war. Of the websites I frequently visit…I can definitely identify some sites that are going overboard with the ads. Especially when these sites have:

- an overwhelming amount of "page real-estate" devoted to advertising (I'm talking what seems to be 75% or more of the page is advertisements)
- flashing, scrolling, and repeating banners
- auto-run videos
- pop-ups
- misleading clickable buttons that instead of navigating the visitor to desirable content…lead to additional unwanted advertising content
- etc.

* Nick

 

[Slydude]

My sentiments exactly Nick. I wonder if the folks at MacWorld.com are listening.

 

[chas_m]

Because I don't want people tracking my browsing habits as I crawl the web.

If you just don't like being tracked, then something like Privacy Badger or Ghostery will do the job.

I concur with this, but I feel like you're overlooking something you've spent a lot of time defending here in the past. Maybe you've changed your mind on some things. In any event, I agree with you.

 

[Rod]

I'm not willing to abandon what I have in place just yet as a knee jerk reaction. I will continue to tweak Ghostery and I have Whitelisted The Deck domain in AdBlock. I'm not about to jump ship just yet I will just see what happens.

 

[lclev]

chas_m, I would love for ads to adopt the philosophy that The Deck is using. Quote: "Ultimately, The Deck’s goal is to serve all sides of the advertising equation equally well. Advertisers get a quality advertising environment, publishers get consistent revenue, and readers get ads that don’t interrupt them or follow them across the Web. Some ads might even be a bit helpful."

I love it! The minimalistic approach would be nice. I will try whitelisting The Deck and see how it goes.

This mess all started with the advent of the ability to build this deluge of more and more flashy, attention grabbing ads to get us to click. This created the demand for blockers. Not only to cut out the annoyance factor but how many times have we advised people to add one of these blocking programs because of a malicious code loaded that came from a supposed ad?

I think the answer could be something like The Deck. Offer clean, minimalistic ads that allow sites to generate revenue. But it will be hard to convince the marketing people. So much of the ads are all about the glitz, predicting, tracking, and reeling in the buyer - what ever it takes to sell the product.

Lisa

 

[pm-r]

I'm not willing to abandon what I have in place just yet as a knee jerk reaction. I will continue to tweak Ghostery and I have Whitelisted The Deck domain in AdBlock. I'm not about to jump ship just yet I will just see what happens.

I just did some checking into Ghostery and how it supposedly works and now my head is spinning and confused, especially compared to how I thought and understood it was working.

And just now after navigating to their site from the option in my menu, I read:
"This Ghostery service is available to you free because we make money from the companies that run the sites you visit. Opting into this program is your choice, but if you choose to opt in, this is how it works:
1. As you visit a site, Ghostery reveals the trackers on that site and we collect that data.
2. Ghostery sells that data about the trackers to companies who run the sites, enabling them to make their sites more secure and load faster.
Do you want to help make the internet faster and safer?

No thanks

Yes! Opt me in"

Call me confused!!

Maybe I need some tweaking advice from Rod…???

 

[lclev]

I have read what you are referring to. It is eloquently phrasing for yes, we are monitoring what trackers you encounter and that we are blocking, and yes, we are selling that data to make money. It doesn't bother me so I leave it checked but if it bothers you just disable Ghostrank.

Lisa

 

[Rod]

Gives the old saying, "Oh what a tangled Web we weave when first we practice to deceive." a whole new meaning. I do have Ghost Rank enabled but I will give it a little more thought. It has occurred to me that I could just turn it all off (AdBlock, Ghostery etc) just to remind myself of how it is today with no blocking at all. Then reactivate and start all over armed with what I now know.

 

[vansmith]

I concur with this, but I feel like you're overlooking something you've spent a lot of time defending here in the past. Maybe you've changed your mind on some things. In any event, I agree with you.

I've never been a proponent of targeted advertising. I presume that you're referring to my defence of Google products which is not the same.

I just did some checking into Ghostery and how it supposedly works and now my head is spinning and confused, especially compared to how I thought and understood it was working.

And just now after navigating to their site from the option in my menu, I read:
"This Ghostery service is available to you free because we make money from the companies that run the sites you visit. Opting into this program is your choice, but if you choose to opt in, this is how it works:
1. As you visit a site, Ghostery reveals the trackers on that site and we collect that data.
2. Ghostery sells that data about the trackers to companies who run the sites, enabling them to make their sites more secure and load faster.
Do you want to help make the internet faster and safer?

No thanks

Yes! Opt me in"

Call me confused!!

Maybe I need some tweaking advice from Rod…???

This is why I recommend Privacy Badger which does basically the same thing but is run by the EFF.

 

[pm-r]

I've never been a proponent of targeted advertising. I presume that you're referring to my defence of Google products which is not the same.

This is why I recommend Privacy Badger which does basically the same thing but is run by the EFF.

I gather that would be the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), but maybe for some balance we should just let the National Security Agency (NSA) and/or Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) etc. control what we don't want.

Sorry, bad joke!!