Re: [projectvrm] Paying Adblock to not block

[Don Marti < >]

begin Doc Searls quotation of Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:57:49AM -0800:
> 
> As usual, a great post. Thanks!
> 
> One suggestion (not just for you, but for everybody interested in studying 
> advertising deeply): link "signal" when you mention it to one simple and 
> clear explanation of what it is.

Added a link, broke out "signaling" as a separate
section in "Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful".

  In a market with asymmetric information, signaling
  is an action that sends a credible message to a
  potential counterparty.

(also took the opportunity to move up the Rory
Sutherland quotation.)

Don


> Because signal is one of those variables with a near-absolute disconnect 
> between importance (couldn't be higher) and understanding (couldn't be 
> lower — at least outside of economic circles). 
> 
> Doc
> 
> > On Feb 4, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Don Marti 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > begin Doc Searls quotation of Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:21:42PM -0800:
> > 
> >>> With decent tracking protection in place --
> >>> and with high-reputation sites promoting it in
> >>> order to minimize data leakage -- user demand for
> >>> broad-spectrum ad blockers is likely to go down.
> >>> 
> >>> (Yes, for high-value sites, data leakage is a bigger
> >>> problem than ad blocking.  This is where the Mozilla
> >>> advertising and tracking protection project align.)
> >> 
> >> That makes sense to me instinctively, but I'd like to see it unpacked a 
> >> bit more.
> > 
> > You asked for it...
> > 
> >  http://zgp.org/~dmarti/business/data-leakage/
> > 
> > -- 
> > Don Marti                    
> > http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> > 
 
> 

-- 
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/