Text archives Help


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


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Matthew Terenzio < >
  • To: Joe Andrieu < >
  • Cc: John Wunderlich < >, ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] [ PFIR ] A former Googler has declared war on ad blockers with a new startup that tackles them in an unorthodox way
  • Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:35:50 -0400
I have a right to walk out of the room when a TV commercial comes on and return when the show resumes.

I have a right to paste a post it note on my laptop screen in front of ad positions.

Just because technology makes something super easy doesn't change the morality of it.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Joe Andrieu < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 07:31 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:
 
 
Two things. First is that the "You can always stop going to the web site" is on a par with "Both a rich man and a poor man are free to sleep by a bridge under the stars". It's true but it doesn't reflect reality. The nature of the Internet and social sites are that utility and attractiveness increase geometrically as a function of users and it becomes socially and practically difficult to opt out of some sites. 
 
 
I understand this well. I've been trying to opt out of Facebook for over a year now. Not only do I have significant work that requires my account to stay active (I Shared What?!?, ShowMeFirst!, and RepealDaySB), but my experiments with alternate social mechanisms in the last year have left me frustrated that Facebook really is a phenomenal tool for lightweight, easy social connections.
 
But it is still a choice.
 
Just like driving is a choice and a privilege. There is recognition in the law that judges will consider, for example, the need to get to and from work when suspending or revoking a driver's license. But there is no "right" to drive.  And there is no "right" to get everything for free just because the technology allows you to... 
 
The fundamental option is opting out or opting in to the system. Working within the system or outside it. These choices transcend this conversation and drive major cultural choices and communities from the Amish to Haredi Jews to ISIS.
 
Complaining because you don't get the benefits of the system when you are, in some small way, opting out of the system is a child's complaint.
 
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 07:31 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:
The second thing is that it's not just ads. There are profilers and trackers that feed information into back end systems for other uses. You live farther from a store, you'll see higher prices on line. You fit a particular demographic profile, you'll be offered different credit cards or ratings (datalines replacing redlines for mortgages). An since the algorithms that make these decisions are proprietary we have no evidence that they are 'objective'. They could just as easily codify the social judgements and views of the programmers and company executives.
 
 
Sure. But that's a different issue. One not-necessary addressed by ad blockers. Ad blockers, *may* incidentally lower your surveillance profile, but that is not what they are sold as.
 
Conflating these issues is why DO NOT TRACK is such a clusterf***. It leads the conversation down ratholes following tasty sound bites that ignore the larger architectural and social issues.
 
The sad fact is that this is the nature of discourse in the post 3-network world. Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh proved you could make more money and get more votes by firing up the base than by trying to speak to the center and solve real problems.
 
As an engineer, I don't see that shift helping us find better solutions.
 
-j
 
 
 
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 07:31 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:
 
Joe;
Two things. First is that the "You can always stop going to the web site" is on a par with "Both a rich man and a poor man are free to sleep by a bridge under the stars". It's true but it doesn't reflect reality. The nature of the Internet and social sites are that utility and attractiveness increase geometrically as a function of users and it becomes socially and practically difficult to opt out of some sites.
The second thing is that it's not just ads. There are profilers and trackers that feed information into back end systems for other uses. You live farther from a store, you'll see higher prices on line. You fit a particular demographic profile, you'll be offered different credit cards or ratings (datalines replacing redlines for mortgages). An since the algorithms that make these decisions are proprietary we have no evidence that they are 'objective'. They could just as easily codify the social judgements and views of the programmers and company executives.
At the end of the day, I'm perfectly willing to have ads display on my screen in return for free content. That's a reasonable trade-off. The problem is that I have no reason to believe that's the only trade-off going on and I won't castigate anyone for taking steps to protect their anonymity in those circumstances.
You should also note that this argument is cast solely in the commercial sphere in a democratic country. Were I a democracy activist in the majority of the world's country's that are not democratic but who are included in the markets that are targeted there are a whole raft of other reasons to ensure a secure broswer with no tracking.
JW
 
 
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:
====
 
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.
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >  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--
> > Founder:
> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
> > 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
> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > pfir mailing list
> >
> >
> >
>
 
 
 
 
 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
 
 


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§