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 < >]

Very good points here...
  
http://web.mit.edu/bwerner/www/papers/AdvertisingContentWhenBrandChoiceisaSignal.pdf
  "consumers can use brand choice to coordinate
  behavior and send meaningful social signals"

Related, from Kevin Simler:
  Ads Don't Work That Way
  http://www.meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/

Clearly people choose and use brands as a way to signal
to each other.  Sometimes the signaling value from
using a good is most of the point of paying for it,
because the actual product is not so great:
  
https://medium.com/life-learning/how-it-s-made-series-beats-by-dre-154aae384b36

That's the basis of one of the old-school complaints
about brand advertising -- that it facilitates what
Simler calls "cultural imprinting", spending money
on crap for the sake of communicating to others.
The more "brand signal" is available as a social tool,
the more that even a _rational_ buyer will choose to
spend on personal signaling instead of quality goods.
("What the hell did you buy those expensive jeans
for? Sears Toughskins jeans are just as good!"
  http://www.retroland.com/toughskin-jeans/ )

Brand advertising is only part of the information
needed in a market -- you also need some kind of
reputation system and independent reviews.

Properly done, with enough signaling inertia,
independent reviews can run in ad-supported media.
But you need the ad/editorial separation, which means
you can't be running editorial on a shoestring, which
means you need to have the feedback loop between
valuable ads and quality editorial running in order
to build up a buffer to smooth out "mad advertiser"
issues.

  "BMW loved the review said it literally turned
  the corner for German car brands in the U.S.,
  and the older guard still talks about it to this
  day. Blaupunkt hated it and pulled their advertising
  for a year."
  
http://jalopnik.com/read-the-car-review-that-every-autojourno-since-has-tri-1666890468

When editorial can't afford to do something like that,
problem.

begin Doc Searls quotation of Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 05:01:58PM -0700:
> 
> This is also why Trader Joe’s has almost no advertising, and no Big Data 
> fed by loyalty programs and other jive. All that stuff is overhead they’d 
> rather not have. 
> 
> In their case the clear signals are sent by their stores, their people, and 
> the products they sell at good prices (yet never discount).
> 
> Doc
> 
> > On Jun 20, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Nathan Schor 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Doc,
> > Nice summary and useful links. Especially from this one;
> > A Dynamic Model of Brand Choice When Price and Advertising Signal Product 
> > Quality 
> > <http://english.ckgsb.edu.cn/sites/default/files/ck_faculty_bhsun_signaling.pdf>
> > which confirms the damage from discounting and concludes: 
> > that frequent price cuts can have significant adverse effects on brand 
> > equity. The role of advertising frequency in signaling quality is also 
> > significant, but it is less quantitatively important than price.
> >  
> > Nathan Schor 305.632.1368 
> > 
 
> >  
> > <mailto:
 >
> >  
> > From: Doc Searls 
> > [mailto:
 
> >  
> > <mailto:
 >]
> >  
> > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 11:39 AM
> > To: Katherine Warman Kern
> > Cc: T.Rob; Joe Andrieu; ProjectVRM list; Gary Rowe
> > Subject: Re: [projectvrm] [ PFIR ] A former Googler has declared war on 
> > ad blockers with a new startup that tackles them in an unorthodox way
> >  
> > The title of Yogi Berra’s book — “I didn’t say those things I said” — 
> > would likely be uttered by John Wanamaker if he returned to life and 
> > heard that “half my advertising is wasted” is attributed to him. 
> >  
> > In fact the line was found among Wanamaker’s personal notes after he 
> > died. But there are no reports of his having uttered it while alive. Or 
> > his believing it. Still, it’s a great line. But also misleading.
> >  
> > There are many kinds of advertising and many ways of measuring it.
> >  
> > Our problem today is that direct response and brand advertising have 
> > become fully conflated, and both are being judged increasingly by the 
> > metrics of the former rather than the latter, because business on the 
> > whole is increasingly obsessed with data and real-time effects. By the 
> > lights of those, brand advertising’s virtues are all but invisible.
> >  
> > But, as Bob Hoffman <http://adcontrarian.com <http://adcontrarian.com/>> 
> > and Don often point out, most of the world’s advertising — especially the 
> > kind on which the largest budgets are spent by the largest companies — is 
> > of the brand kind, not the direct response kind.
> >  
> > The measure of “working" for brand advertising is awareness and perceived 
> > value. These are caused by what Don (and economists) call signals.
> >  
> > We tend to see a “signal” as a means to convey information, such as a 
> > broadcast signal, a railroad signal or a traffic signal. In economic 
> > terms, however, a signal is a “what” rather than a “how.” Frequency in 
> > advertising, for example, signals economic sufficiency: the company can 
> > afford to spend the money. Humor in advertising signals qualities about 
> > the company’s or the product’s personality. Here are a few academic 
> > papers that explore signaling in advertising:
> >  
> > <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amna_Kirmani/publication/261651023_Advertising_Repetition_as_a_Signal_of_Quality_If_It%27s_Advertised_So_Much_Something_Must_Be_Wrong/links/5491c0110cf2078d15659eaa.pdf
> >  
> > <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amna_Kirmani/publication/261651023_Advertising_Repetition_as_a_Signal_of_Quality_If_It's_Advertised_So_Much_Something_Must_Be_Wrong/links/5491c0110cf2078d15659eaa.pdf>>
> >  
> > <http://english.ckgsb.edu.cn/sites/default/files/ck_faculty_bhsun_signaling.pdf
> >  
> > <http://english.ckgsb.edu.cn/sites/default/files/ck_faculty_bhsun_signaling.pdf>>
> >  
> > <http://web.mit.edu/bwerner/www/papers/AdvertisingContentWhenBrandChoiceisaSignal.pdf
> >  
> > <http://web.mit.edu/bwerner/www/papers/AdvertisingContentWhenBrandChoiceisaSignal.pdf>>
> >  
> > Direct response advertising counts small or tiny percentages (5% or less 
> > — sometimes far less) as success. I don’t know if Wanamaker did direct 
> > response advertising (it would have been direct mail or flyers in his 
> > day), but I am sure if he did, he would not have used the “half is 
> > wasted” line. Because the waste rounds almost to 100%.
> >  
> > As for Steve Jobs, just look at his obsession with quality and taste in 
> > everything — especially advertising. It’s pure signal. And you never see 
> > a price or a call to action. And how valuable is it? Hard to measure, but 
> > easy to tell.
> >  
> > Doc
> >  
> >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Katherine Warman Kern 
> >> <
 
> >>  
> >> <mailto:
 >>
> >>  wrote:
> >>  
> >> Currently working on a presentation that reveals that the 
> >> media/marketing industry has been chasing its tail for over 100 years by 
> >> introducing new technologies to solve the classic Wannamaker problem: 
> >> 50% of my advertising works, but I don't know which it is.
> >>  
> > 
> >> At the height of the MadMen days the norm was: 30% worked.
> >>  
> >> Today it is less than 1%.
> >>  
> >> What if we've made things worse by focusing on the problem - why 50% of 
> >> Wannamaker's advertising didn't work?
> >>  
> >> The result is we've created an ecosystem that creates a media/marketing 
> >> ecosystem that doesn't work. 
> >>  
> >> Any golfer knows that when you look at the pond or sand trap and think 
> >> how high the odds that it will go in there, it does - 100% of the time.
> >>  
> >> Wonder what ideas we'd come up with if we thought about why Wannamaker's 
> >> ads worked 50% of the time. Why did almost everyone buy newspapers then? 
> >> Why did 50% of them buy the advertised products when they saw them in 
> >> the store?
> >>  
> >> Isn't this what Steve Jobs thought about when he launched iTunes and the 
> >> iPod when everyone was downloading music for free? 
> >>  
> >> K-
> >> 
> >> Katherine Warman Kern
> >>  
> >> 
> >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 12:04 AM, T.Rob 
> >> <
 
> >>  
> >> <mailto:
 >>
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>>  
> >>> > This is a good discussion. 
> >>> > Joe, thanks for pushing back. It’s essential that we not come from a 
> >>> > complaining or victim position. 
> >>>  
> >>> Yup.  Just like the bull in the ring doesn't approach from a 
> >>> complaining or victim position.  He's just as dead by the end of the 
> >>> match though.  
> >>>  
> >>> I assume the people arguing against ad blockers do not use them, don't 
> >>> use NoScript, Ghostery, Privacy Badger or any other tool that results 
> >>> in ads not being served.  It is therefore only a matter of time before 
> >>> they are pwned.  Will a $500 ransomeware fee change their mind?  Over 
> >>> the last few weeks I've received spam emails from 3 people I met 
> >>> through IIW whose computers are infected.  Doc, I know you know one of 
> >>> them personally because you and I and Joyce discussed it.  One I didn't 
> >>> mention at that time is a CEO and investor of Qredo.  One of them is 
> >>> active on this list and participating in this thread so chances many of 
> >>> us got that infected email.  So it isn't as though this problem isn't 
> >>> hitting close to home.  How bad does it need to get before we admit 
> >>> it's a problem?  
> >>>  
> >>> Just to level set, below is an *unduplicated* list of news stories 
> >>> about new malicious advertising incidents reported just in just the 
> >>> last week.  Compromised ad networks mentioned by name included 
> >>> Doubleclick, AppNexus, Rubicon, and Pop Cash.  And this is not the 
> >>> "seedy" Internet that you can easily avoid.  Compromised sites 
> >>> mentioned by name included Yahoo, YouTube, the New York Times, CNN 
> >>> India,  Source Forge, telegraaf.nl <http://telegraaf.nl/>, 
> >>> theguardian.co.uk <http://theguardian.co.uk/>, huffingtonpost.com 
> >>> <http://huffingtonpost.com/>, lemonde.fr <http://lemonde.fr/>, UK eBay, 
> >>> the official website of Prague Airport, Detik, AASTOCKS, RTL Television 
> >>> Croatia, and the Nikkei Stock Exchange.    One incident alone accounts 
> >>> for an estimated 50 million infections and I found seven incidents 
> >>> reported last week alone.
> >>>  
> >>> But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate for the moment that most 
> >>> people block ads simply because they don't like ads and that security 
> >>> isn't an issue for them.  So what?  Their unawareness of the risk in no 
> >>> way justifies an argument that it doesn't exist.  Nor is it responsible 
> >>> to argue ad blocking in a vacuum that deliberately pretends the ad 
> >>> networks are not pipelines for malware delivery.  Whatever their 
> >>> original intention and despite whatever pure motives of the best of 
> >>> their leadership, the ad networks today are riddled with malware and 
> >>> have become toxic.  We are far beyond the point where that can be 
> >>> pulled out of the discussion.  The motives of the people doing the ad 
> >>> blocking doesn't factor into it unless the objective is to punish them 
> >>> for their perceived motives.  Is that really the argument you want to 
> >>> make?  That we should ignore the massive amount of malvertising 
> >>> infecting ad networks because users blocking ads deserve to be punished?
> >>>  
> >>> Incidentally, now that malvertising has become a significant threat to 
> >>> businesses, companies like Proofpoint are selling industrial-strength 
> >>> Enterprise ad blockers that live in the proxy server instead of the 
> >>> browser.   I wonder how this discussion changes when instead of 
> >>> individuals running ad blockers, it is Fortune 500 companies claiming 
> >>> that ad blocking is a core component of their security strategy and 
> >>> indispensable to their compliance posture.  Get your talking points 
> >>> ready because that cannot be far away and it will soon seem very, very 
> >>> silly to claim with a straight face that individuals deserve to be 
> >>> infected and have no right to use ad blockers but that it is OK for 
> >>> corporations to block ads because, you know, profit.
> >>>  
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> -- T.Rob
> >>>  
> >>> Weaponized Word docs, spyware and malvertising sprouting in May
> >>> CSO Online- 19 June 2015
> >>> http://www.csoonline.com/article/2937980/malware-cybercrime/weaponized-word-docs-spyware-and-malvertising-sprouting-in-may.html
> >>>  
> >>> <http://www.csoonline.com/article/2937980/malware-cybercrime/weaponized-word-docs-spyware-and-malvertising-sprouting-in-may.html>
> >>> Pull quotes:
> >>>  
> >>> One more type of malware got through traditional defenses last month, 
> >>> malvertising that used Flash overflows to assemble malware using the 
> >>> native scripting features built into Windows.
> >>>  
> >>> "They're able to download additional pieces of malware, or script it 
> >>> out using the old 'echo' command, writing code right from the malware," 
> >>> said Belcher.
> >>>  
> >>> He added that Invincea has seen this approach working against 
> >>> fully-patched versions of Internet Explorer as well as against 
> >>> fully-patched versions of Flash.
> >>>  
> >>> "The surprising stuff is how prevalent it is," he said. "People talk 
> >>> about malvertising, about making it better, but it doesn't seem to be 
> >>> the case from my point of view. It seems to be getting worse, not 
> >>> better."
> >>>  
> >>> The Doubleclick advertising network was the hardest hit, Belcher said.
> >>>  
> >>> "But they are no worse than any of the other ones," he added. "They 
> >>> partner with so many other advertising networks on the back end. it 
> >>> takes just one of the back-end partners to switch out one of the ads 
> >>> with malicious advertising."
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> Think You’re Safe from Malware? Think Again
> >>> Infosecurity Magazine - 19 June 2015
> >>> http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/think-safe-from-malware/ 
> >>> <http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/think-safe-from-malware/>
> >>> Pull quotes
> >>> We have seen a dramatic increase in malicious advertising 
> >>> (malvertising) on mainstream sites such as Yahoo, YouTube, the New York 
> >>> Times and others, triggering exploits that download banking trojans and 
> >>> even ransomware.
> >>>  
> >>> Ransomware is perhaps the worst strain of malware because it encrypts 
> >>> all documents on a computer or even an entire network, and holds those 
> >>> files for ransom. While it may be devastating for a home user to lose 
> >>> their family photos, it could also severely affect a business and have 
> >>> a lasting impact.
> >>>  
> >>> Exploit attacks will continue to increase because the criminals know 
> >>> it’s an easy way to infiltrate a business’ IT systems as human error 
> >>> isn’t part of the equation.
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> A hotbed of malware: Another blow for SourceForge as Google discovers 
> >>> 588 pages with malicious software
> >>> Information Age - 18 June 2015
> >>> http://www.information-age.com/industry/software/123459675/hotbed-malware-another-blow-sourceforge-google-discovers-588-pages-malicious-software
> >>>  
> >>> <http://www.information-age.com/industry/software/123459675/hotbed-malware-another-blow-sourceforge-google-discovers-588-pages-malicious-software>
> >>> After Source Forge was purchased by Dice, they filled it with 
> >>> advertising that was itself filled with malware.  It is so bad that 
> >>> project owners are fleeing the site and trying to protect themselves 
> >>> from the site's new owners.  Source Forge may go extinct because of 
> >>> malvertising.  
> >>> Pull quotes:
> >>>  
> >>> Last month, SourceForge caused more controversy by taking control of 
> >>> projects that had left the site and replacing the download links with 
> >>> more adware.
> >>>  
> >>> Now, Google’s diagnostics page for SourceForge has exposed the worrying 
> >>> implications of Dice Holdings’ strategy of exposing users to unwanted 
> >>> adware.   It shows that SourceForge has been distributing a huge amount 
> >>> of malware alongside legitimate applications.
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> Large malvertising campaign targeting the Netherlands
> >>> Fox IT -  June 15, 2015
> >>> http://blog.fox-it.com/2015/06/15/large-malvertising-campaign-targeting-the-netherlands/
> >>>  
> >>> <http://blog.fox-it.com/2015/06/15/large-malvertising-campaign-targeting-the-netherlands/>
> >>> Pull quotes:
> >>> Sadly malvertising has become a usual occurrence, but the events we’ve 
> >>> been observing since Thursday the 11th of June stood out. An active 
> >>> malvertising campaign propagating via 2 major advertisement networks is 
> >>> targeting visitors only coming from the Netherlands, using the Angler 
> >>> Exploit Kit.
> >>>  
> >>> Currently the popular Dutch news website Telegraaf[.]nl is, indirectly, 
> >>> causing the most victims.
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> Weaponized Word Docs and Malvertising on the Nikkei
> >>> Invincea - 15 June 2015
> >>> http://www.invincea.com/2015/06/advanced-endpoint-threat-trends-may-2015-weaponized-word-docs-and-malvertising-on-the-nikkei/
> >>>  
> >>> <http://www.invincea.com/2015/06/advanced-endpoint-threat-trends-may-2015-weaponized-word-docs-and-malvertising-on-the-nikkei/>
> >>> Pull quotes:
> >>> Malvertising hit the Nikkei Stock Exchange website and also targeted 
> >>> other Japanese financial sites. Given the inherent risk of running ads 
> >>> on a website (due to malvertising, etc.), it was eye-opening that a 
> >>> major international stock exchange would choose to monetize their news 
> >>> and analysis in this way.
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> Malvertising Campaign Exposes 50 Million To Malware
> >>> Tech Week Europe - June 12
> >>> http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/security/cyberwar/malvertising-campaign-malware-170323?PageSpeed=noscript
> >>>  
> >>> <http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/security/cyberwar/malvertising-campaign-malware-170323?PageSpeed=noscript>
> >>> Pull quotes:
> >>> According to Websense Security Labs, the latest malvertising campaign 
> >>> exposes potentially up to 50 million web users to some nasty malware.
> >>>  
> >>> When a web user tries to browse to websites such as CNN Indonesia, the 
> >>> official website of Prague Airport, Detik, AASTOCKS, RTL Television 
> >>> Croatia, and the Bejewled Blitz game on Facebook, they are potentially 
> >>> exposed to this malware thanks to compromised OpenX scripts. The nasty 
> >>> code is “evasive and stealthy” and leads to the Angler Exploit Kit 
> >>> which exploits an Adobe Flash flaw in order to insert the Bunitu trojan 
> >>> onto the PC.
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> Pop-Under Malvertising Spreads CryptoWall Via Magnitude Exploit Kit
> >>> Softpedia - 12 June 2015
> >>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pop-Under-Malvertising-Spreads-CryptoWall-Via-Magnitude-Exploit-Kit-484182.shtml
> >>>  
> >>> <http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pop-Under-Malvertising-Spreads-CryptoWall-Via-Magnitude-Exploit-Kit-484182.shtml>
> >>> Pull quotes:
> >>> A malvertising campaign discovered by researchers at Malwarebytes 
> >>> leverages pop-under advertisements distributed through Popcash ad 
> >>> network to infect computers with CryptoWall and possibly other types of 
> >>> malware.
> >>>  
> >>> With CryptoWall installed on the computer, users without file backups 
> >>> do not stand a chance of getting their data back without paying the 
> >>> ransom imposed by the crooks. Segura says that the fee is set to $500 / 
> >>> €440, a price not many are able to pay.
> >>>  
> >>> “Paying the ransom as a desperate measure to get those important files 
> >>> can be understood but it also keeps this underground economy 
> >>> flourishing,” the researcher warns, echoing the long time 
> >>> recommendation from security experts not to pay.
> >>>  
> >>> Combating malvertising requires a collective effort from publishers, ad 
> >>> networks and visitors. Publishers carefully selecting partners, 
> >>> networks making sure that the code served is clean and users keeping 
> >>> their software products up-to-date, is the recipe for protecting 
> >>> against this type of risk.
> >>>  
> >>> ****************************
> >>>  
> >>>  
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: T.Rob 
> >>> > [mailto:
 
> >>> >  
> >>> > <mailto:
 >]
> >>> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 17:38 PM
> >>> > To: 'Joe Andrieu'; 
> >>> > '
 
> >>> >  
> >>> > <mailto:
 >'
> >>> > Subject: RE: [projectvrm] [ PFIR ] A former Googler has declared war 
> >>> > on ad
> >>> > blockers with a new startup that tackles them in an unorthodox way
> >>> > 
> >>> > 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
> >>> >  
> >>> > <http://downloads.pagefair.com/reports/adblocking_goes_mainstream_2014_report.pdf>
> >>> > .pdf 
> >>> > <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:
 
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > <mailto:
 >]
> >>> > > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 14:54 PM
> >>> > > To: T.Rob; 
> >>> > > 
 
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > <mailto:
 >
> >>> > > 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 
> >>> > > > <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:
 
> >>> > > > >  
> >>> > > > > <mailto:
 >]
> >>> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 1:30 AM
> >>> > > > > To: 
> >>> > > > > 
 
> >>> > > > >  
> >>> > > > > <mailto:
 >
> >>> > > > > 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-sourcep
> >>> > > > >  
> >>> > > > > <http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcep>
> >>> > > > > oi
> >>> > > > > 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
> >>> > > > > > > <
 
> >>> > > > > > >  
> >>> > > > > > > <mailto:
 >>
> >>> > > > > 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-sou
> >>> > > > > > >  
> >>> > > > > > > <http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sou>
> >>> > > > > > > rc
> >>> > > > > > > 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 
> >>> > > > > > > (
 
> >>> > > > > > >  
> >>> > > > > > > <mailto:
 >):
> >>> > > > > > > http://www.vortex.com/lauren <http://www.vortex.com/lauren>
> >>> > > > > > > Founder:
> >>> > > > > > > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://www.nnsquad.org/>
> >>> > > > > > > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info>
> >>> > > > > > > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility:
> >>> > > > > > > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info>
> >>> > > > > > > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy 
> >>> > > > > > > Lauren's
> >>> > Blog:
> >>> > > > > > > http://lauren.vortex.com <http://lauren.vortex.com/>
> >>> > > > > > > Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein>
> >>> > > > > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein>
> >>> > > > > > > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://vortex.com/>
> >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > > > > > pfir mailing list
> >>> > > > > > > http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir 
> >>> > > > > > > <http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir>
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > --
> >>> > > > > Joe Andrieu
> >>> > > > > 
 
> >>> > > > >  
> >>> > > > > <mailto:
 >
> >>> > > > > +1(805)705-8651
> >>> > > > > http://blog.joeandrieu.com <http://blog.joeandrieu.com/>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Joe Andrieu
> >>> > > 
 
> >>> > >  
> >>> > > <mailto:
 >
> >>> > > +1(805)705-8651
> >>> > > http://blog.joeandrieu.com <http://blog.joeandrieu.com/>

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