Re: [projectvrm] [ PFIR ] A former Googler has declared war on ad blockers with a new startup that tackles them in an unorthodox way

[Don Marti < >]

Ad blocking is one mushroom on a vast underground
fungus of problems with web ads.

Simplified chart:
  http://zgp.org/~dmarti/business/haywire/

If you try to "fix" ad blocking without paying
attention to fraud and data leakage, you just
reinforce other parts of the same complex of problems.

You can tell which sites are totally bogus and
fraudulent by their low ad blocking rates.  But try
to fix fraud with special fraud-fixing services,
and you end up with more data leakage, driving down
revenue and pushing more users into ad blocking.

What special ointment and toothpaste do I need
to fix my skin and gum problems?  Well, really,
they're both symptoms of scurvy, and you need to eat
a balanced diet.

What special startups do I need to work with to fix
my fraud and adblock problems?  Well, really, they're
both symptoms of third-party tracking, and you need
to help your users get tracking protection.

A basic first step:
  http://blog.aloodo.org/posts/mini-warning/

Bonus links: 

  What is going on with who's paying
  who and who's getting ripped off?
  http://www.bjanda.com/blog/contracts-and-enquiries-rebates-and-dark-pools/

  It's like retargeting, but with data leakage!
  http://blog.adroll.com/product/adroll-prospecting
  (srsly, this is a thing?)


begin Mark Lizar quotation of Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:19:52PM +0100:
> 
> HI Joe, 
> 
> This is a VRM list where we are working on signals people can use to tell 
> vendors what they want and display preferences. i.e. don’t show me an ad or 
> I will leave.
> 
> I definitely think better signals are good. (you are right i didn’t read 
> that far) but, I was reacting to the tone of the source point  doc.  i.e. 
> forcing people to watch ads because its a moral right of the content maker. 
>  if there was a better choice, and an ad came up, like on Wired, that 
> explains support our content and look at our ad’s, then I would choose that 
> for the publishers I like. 
> 
> The alternative is a very slippery slope. 
> 
> - Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On 19 Jun 2015, at 06:29, Joe Andrieu 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > This is like a bunch of toddlers fighting over who gets to play with the
> > doll.
> > 
> > If you don't like the ads, don't go to those websites. You aren't forced
> > to.
> > 
> > Sure, websites don't have the capability (or moral authority) to MAKE
> > you see the ads, but that is absolutely the quid-pro-quo that is paying
> > for the servers and the writers and the designers and the programmers
> > and the sysadmins and the entire infrastructure that makes that page
> > possible.
> > 
> > Yes, ad blockers are a technically and morally valid response.  You can
> > be a punk and thumb your nose at the "man" and while it may be rude to
> > the hard workers who made it possible and ethically questionable... it's
> > totally a choice you can make without breaking any laws or causing any
> > real moral hazard.
> > 
> > Mr. Barokas response is exactly the kind of counter you should expect.
> > If you don't want to be a part of the quid-pro-quo, expect measures to
> > be taken to limit the quid you get without that quo. 
> > 
> > What's ridiculous, IMNSHO, is that Sourcepoint is getting such a sour
> > read from this list. Yes, it sucks if you want to demand you should get
> > free content. But take a moment and read about how it ACTUALLY works:
> > 
> > ====
> > Here's how Sourcepoint works: It will let a publisher decide how to
> > present a message to a web visitor that has an ad blocker installed. The
> > publisher could choose to circumvent the ad blocker and serve the ad, or
> > it could say to the visitor "our ads pay for your content, how about you
> > choose to allow them," or it could allow the user to choose their
> > advertising experience (three ads for three stories, for example,) or
> > the publisher could ask them to pay to subscribe.
> > 
> > Read more:
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6#ixzz3dTt5IVBk
> > ====
> > 
> > So, if you actually RTFA, you'll realize that Sourcepoint gives
> > publishers a tool for increased engagement, and creates an opportunity
> > for greater choice (if the publisher is willing to take that route). For
> > the first time, publishers have the ability to have a conversation with
> > site visitors in realtime, at the point of consumption, about what
> > quid-pro-quo might work for both parties. Contrast that to the rest of
> > the ad marketplace where there is almost zero ability to express intent
> > to anyone.
> > 
> > Sure, maybe most publishers are just going to take option A and be dicks
> > about it. But publishers who want healthy relationships with their
> > readers will explore those other options and there might actually emerge
> > a different model for how we finance content. Without that conversation,
> > we got bupkis.
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong, I think the whole ad-based business model is
> > structurally amoral. Not immoral. Amoral. The alignment of interests are
> > between buyers and sellers of ads, and our attention is just the sausage
> > filling in the butcher's shop.  So screw that.
> > 
> > But wining about Sourcepoint is just an echo of the toddler crying
> > "Mine! Mine! Mine!!!"
> > 
> > As long as you're striving to put one over on the system, you should
> > expect the system to respond in kind.
> > 
> > Your actual freedoms here are not being compromised. You can ALWAYS stop
> > going to the website.  If one year you have a nifty tool that gets you
> > out of footing the attention bill that finances the whole shebang,
> > WhoohoO! Good for you. You got away with a few dollars worth of free
> > media. When that tool stops working, suck it up and either build a new
> > tool or accept that your parasitic free ride has come to an end.
> > 
> > -j
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, at 04:29 PM, Mark Lizar wrote:
> >> +1,
> >> 
> >> Blocking ad’s is a consent preference.
> >> 
> >> There is not contract or consent for serving ads, if someone blocks ad’s
> >> the website doesn't have to let a visitor have access to the website.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On 18 Jun 2015, at 18:36, Identity Coach 
> >>> <
 >
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Can't help but notice the entitlement in assuming that somehow we 
> >>> agreed to the ad-based model, or agreed by use of services from 
> >>> companies that choose this model over all other alternatives is somehow 
> >>> a meaningful assent to terms that most of us couldn't understand the 
> >>> meaning of if we tried.
> >>> 
> >>> Yeah, I'm looking at Mr. "What Privacy?" Facebook and Mr. Do No Evil 
> >>> Google, two of a herd of bullies.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> >>> 
> >>> A former Googler has declared war on ad blockers with a new startup
> >>> that tackles them in an unorthodox way
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6
> >>> 
> >>> Speaking to Business Insider, Barokas explained that to solve the
> >>> existential crisis ad blockers pose to publishers, Sourcepoint wants
> >>> to help the publishing community solve two problems: It has the
> >>> technology to punch through "all the ad blockers."  And it wants to
> >>> help publishers have a more open dialog with readers about the
> >>> transaction that takes place when they consume content: The implicit
> >>> (but often over-looked) understanding that publishers serve ads in
> >>> exchange for content being presented for free. And that a transaction
> >>> needs to take place in the first place because content requires
> >>> investment.
> >>> 
> >>> - - -
> >>> 
> >>> As you probably know, I am *not* a fan of ad blocking in general, for a
> >>> number of reasons. Whether or not the approach to the issue outlined
> >>> here is practicable and what sorts of collateral push-back might be
> >>> triggered are open questions at the moment.
> >>> 
> >>> --Lauren--
> >>> Lauren Weinstein 
> >>> (
 ):
> >>>  http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> >>> Founder:
> >>> - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
> >>> - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
> >>> Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: 
> >>> http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
> >>> Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> >>> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> >>> Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
> >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
> >>> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> pfir mailing list
> >>> http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Joe Andrieu
> > 
 
> > +1(805)705-8651
> > http://blog.joeandrieu.com
> 

-- 
Don Marti 
<
 >
                   
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?  http://www.aloodo.org/test/