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

[Joe Andrieu < >]

T. Rob,

You make my point for me.  If you start with ad networks = malicious,
then there isn't any room for constructive conversation. That's my point
about it being an immature tantrum.  There's an in-grained cultural
alienation of the ad networks, to the point where they, and their
advocates, are dehumanized and made the enemy at all costs.

That sort of embedded bias isn't just distasteful, it's actively skewing
the conversation into non-productive avenues and shutting down
opportunities to understand how the architecture itself might be
adjusted.  

I call it out because unchallenged biases are one of the most limiting
and destructive habits in a community trying to find new solutions.

If Project VRM wants to focus on whining about advertisers instead of
finding better avenues of independence and engagement, that's a choice
the group can make.  I think its the wrong choice, but I'm just one of
many here.

 T.Rob wrote:
> 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." 

Visiting websites, then selectively disabling those components that
finance those websites is definitely "thumbing your nose a the man,"
akin to sneaking past the bouncer to avoid the cover charge.

This is COMPLETELY different than disabling those components that put
your computer or your digital life at risk.  But people aren't talking
about third-party malware protection or even third-party cookie
anti-surveillance. The focus is on screwing the ad networks by blocking
the ads.

If your concern is about ad networks fundamentally threatening the
health of your machine, deal with that issue.

But being angry because the bouncer at the club closed the loophole that
was letting you in for free... I have no sympathy for that, no more than
I have for the punk teenager I see getting escorted out after getting
caught. [Assuming he isn't being tased or pepper sprayed or otherwise
assaulted in the process.]

 T.Rob wrote:
> 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?

Because I'm not conflating the display of advertisements with
exploitation of the network. I don't believe most users are disabling
ads for security or privacy reasons. They are disabling them because
they don't want to pay the attention tax that finances the content. 
Start a thread about security & privacy if you like, but that's not what
the Sourcepoint story was talking about.

-j

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 07:54 AM, T.Rob wrote:
> 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
> 


-- 
Joe Andrieu

 
+1(805)705-8651
http://blog.joeandrieu.com