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

["T.Rob" < >]

Joe,

I'd be more inclined to agree with that if the ads being served were not 
malicious.  To equate this to a toddler's tantrum is questionable even if the 
issues were exactly as you describe them.  But they are not.  You totally 
omitted the facts that the ad networks are delivering malware en masse, 
people are being harmed, and it is because of, not in spite of, the 
deliberate obfuscation and complexity of the delivery system that there is no 
accountability for this.

So when Source Point says they can "punch through ad blockers" and the 
industry acts as if all that is being delivered is benign, and continues to 
refuse any responsibility for their part in delivering malware onto our 
devices, then yeah some of us have a problem with it.

If I go to a web site where I can't get content without the ads, I do without 
the content.  Large swaths of the Internet are dark to me.  But it is hardly 
me "thumbing my nose at the man."  It is me trying very hard not to have my 
devices pwned by "the man." 

For example, look at "Kaspersky’s Security Bulletin Overall statistics for 
2014" (http://iopt.us/1DvT43P)

Of their "The TOP 20 malicious objects detected online" 12 are adware. Some 
pull quotes:

"Noticeably, in 2014 there was an increase in the number of advertising 
programs in the TOP 20, up from 5 to 12 compared to the previous year and 
accounting for 8.2% of all malicious objects detected online (+7.01 
percentage points). The growth in the amount of advertising programs, along 
with their aggressive distribution schemes and their efforts to counteract 
anti-virus detection, has become the trend of 2014."

"The Trojan-Clicker.JS.Agent.im verdict is also connected to advertising and 
all sorts of “potentially unwanted” activities. This is how scripts placed on 
Amazon Cloudfront to redirect users to pages with advertising content are 
detected. Links to these scripts are inserted by adware and various 
extensions for browsers, mainly on users’ search pages. The scripts can also 
redirect users to malicious pages containing recommendations to update Adobe 
Flash and Java – a popular method of spreading malware." 

I can understand the ad industry trying to act as if this were not at issue.  
I don't understand why it doesn't appear in your analysis.  Are you saying 
I'm obliged to bear the risk of harm to get the content I want?  Or do you 
deny the risk?

Kind regards,
-- T.Rob



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Andrieu 
> [mailto:
 ]
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 1:30 AM
> To: 
> 
 
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] [ PFIR ] A former Googler has declared war on ad
> blockers with a new startup that tackles them in an unorthodox way
> 
> 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-sourcepoi
> > > nt-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