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,

> If you start with ad networks = malicious, then
> there isn't any room for constructive conversation.

I didn't start with start with ad networks = malicious.  I started with not 
liking to be tracked.  Then news reports surfaced explaining how people are 
being harmed by malicious ads.  The more news reports surfaced about how ad 
targeting helps spearphishing and waterhole campaigns.  Then the stories 
about demographics that include categories for gullible seniors and other 
vulnerable populations.  Then the stories about how the ad networks were used 
for a coordinated and concentrated two week sustained attack on selected US 
Government agencies and Defense contractors.  It goes on.  

As much as you'd like to remove malware from the discussion, they are a big 
part of the problems with ads.  Until the malware problem is addressed, to 
argue against ad blocking is to argue *for* security vulnerability and harm 
to recipients of those ads. It's like insisting any discussion of Gamergate 
focus on the issue of corruption in gaming journalism and totally ignore that 
it is associated with terrorism against prominent women.  

The window of opportunity to talk about ads without having to talk about 
malware closed when the ad networks became riddled with malware.  Sorry.  It 
is what it is.

> 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.

It's interesting to me that you can talk about cultural alienation while in 
the same breath characterizing people who defend ad blocking as whiny, 
tantrum-throwing toddlers.  You see no irony ion this?

> 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.

Believe what you like.  Disconnect, Ghostery, NoScript, and others focus 
exclusively on the privacy and security aspects.  Their market *is* people 
concerned about tracking and malware.  The rhetoric of AdBlock Plus regarding 
"annoying ads" is legacy of their origin when that was the overwhelming 
concern. It is convenient for pro-ads people to talk about this as if it were 
the only issue, but it isn't.  That discussion pretends ads blocked by 
privacy tools are part and parcel of the total lumped in with AdBlock Plus.

A recent Pagefair study says only 45% use ad blockers to remove all ads.  30% 
said ads without tracking would be OK.  25% said they use ad blockers out of 
concern about performance and privacy.  The numbers regarding privacy and 
tracking are fast growing.
http://downloads.pagefair.com/reports/adblocking_goes_mainstream_2014_report.pdf
 

Furthermore, nobody is providing reasonable alternatives.  When site owners 
offer paid subscriptions, it is at $2 or $4 a month - $24 to $36 a year *per* 
*site*.  Meanwhile at IIW when Sean told us about Mozilla's experiment with 
monetization of content, the said the per-capita allocation in the US was 
closer to $6 per person per year for *all* sites.  I'd happily pay the $24 or 
$36 per year to remove all ads.  That amount per site per year?  That's 
ridiculous.  Site owners cannot reasonably claim we rejected the subscription 
model when their ask for a single site is 4x a user's total ad allocation.


All that said, this is kind of a Groundhog day. Not so long ago the 
discussion was about how Napster was going to kill the music industry.  The 
problem was framed as one of music pirates posing an existential threat to 
music itself.  Now iTunes and Amazon MP3 are thriving.  The threat to music 
comes more from their monopoly power than anyone's disinterest in paying for 
music.  

The issue here isn't people stealing content any more than it was people 
stealing music.  The issue is that the monetization of content is adversarial 
to consumer interests and expectations.  Instead of working to come up with 
something users are willing to live with, the approach instead is more 
invasion, more coercion, and lately delivery of malicious payloads for a fee. 
 If advertisers do not fix this, web site owners will package content and 
sell it like cable TV subscription bundles, leaving small site owners and 
advertisers out in the cold.  I'd rather have the advertising than a hegemony 
of large content sites but I'm damn sure not going to be bullied or 
guilt-tripped into deliberately allowing malware onto my devices in the 
meantime, no matter what names people want to call me.

Kind regards,
-- T.Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Andrieu 
> [mailto:
 ]
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 14:54 PM
> To: T.Rob; 
> 
 
> Subject: 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,
> 
> 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-sourcepoi
> > > nt-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-sourc
> > > > > epoi
> > > > > 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