Re: [projectvrm] The Rise of AdBlock Reveals A Serious Problem in the Advertising Ecosystem | Monday Note

[Don Marti < >]

The ad-agency-friendly ad blocker is already here:
  https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

Mozilla has a built-in tracking protection project
as well, haven't tried it yet:
  https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox

If you want to see how it works, install Privacy
Badger, turn off other ad blockers, and go read the
article on Quartz...
  
http://qz.com/308175/the-rise-of-adblock-reveals-a-serious-problem-in-the-advertising-world/

There's some tracking going on (and Privacy Badger is
blocking it), but checkitout...a web implementation
of magazine-style ads.  Big and attention-getting,
not crappy or creepy.  And with tracking protection
on, unlikely to be "relevant", so the reader has a
reason to look at them.

If users block the targeted third-party ads that
don't pull their weight, and let the potentially
valuable non-targeted kind through, it's a win for
legit advertisers.  Privacy Badger is not 100%, but
the closest I've seen.  (You can't really understand
a media outlet without seeing the first-party ads if
it has them.)

Next step is for high-value web properties such
as Quartz (run by the same company that runs the
Atlantic) to quietly "nudge" users into turning on
their tracking protection.  (Ideally you get people
to protect themselves from the crappy targeted
ads before they get frustrated, search "block ads"
and over-block.) http://ad.aloodo.com/ is a first
experiment, but there are a lot of ways to do it.

Don

begin T.Rob quotation of Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:47:13AM -0500:
> 
> The lawsuit is very illustrative.  One group sees a need in the market and 
> addresses it with code.  Another sees a need and seeks remedy in court.  If 
> you were an investor choosing between a business model based on innovation 
> and one based on legal subsidies, where do you put your money?  I'm betting 
> on innovation every time.
> 
>  
> 
> Filloux says that "a single private entity cannot decide what is acceptable 
> or not for an entire sector. Especially in such an opaque fashion."  The 
> thing is, it *isn't* a single private entity.  It is but one approach to ad 
> blocking and it has been adopted by millions of private entities as being 
> their preferred implementation.  That some of these users do not know of 
> other implementations and just take the default confers on Eyeo some 
> additional influence but that is hardly something to sue over.  
> 
>  
> 
> Of course, that they haven't tried to solve this through code is a bit 
> comforting.  I can't imagine what an ad blocker written by an ad company 
> would do under the covers. ;-)  But if they wanted to resolve this through 
> innovation instead of seeking legal subsidy of their broken business model 
> they might consider actually innovating.  For example, by coming up with 
> ads people don't want to block. 
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -- T.Rob
> 
>  
> 
> T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
> 
> IoPT Consulting, LLC
> 
> +1 704-443-TROB (8762) Voice/Text
> 
> +44 (0) 8714 089 546  Voice
> 
> https://ioptconsulting.com <https://ioptconsulting.com/> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
> 
>  
> 
> From: Wunderlich, John 
> [mailto:
 ]
>  
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:46 AM
> To: Doc Searls
> Cc: ProjectVRM list; Ben Williams
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] The Rise of AdBlock Reveals A Serious Problem in 
> the Advertising Ecosystem | Monday Note
> 
>  
> 
> I'd like to hear their response as well. The secondary theme in the piece 
> was about how the company does make money - including white listing and 
> 'acceptable' ads. If I read it correctly this isn't about allowing users to 
> expression intention, but rather trying to align the ad economy with what 
> they believe most users will find acceptable.
> 
> On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Doc Searls 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks. A lot in there, and in the comments below.
> 
> I am also cc'ing Ben Williams, who works for adblockplus.org in Cologne. 
> I'd like to hear their position on the piece.
> 
> Doc
> 
> > On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:22 AM, John Wunderlich 
> > <
 
> >  <javascript:;> > wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone see this piece? I don't know the site, but the main point is 
> > that advertisers are considering suing the makers of AdBlock Plus, I 
> > pulled this quote for the list:
> >
> > "Regardless of its validity, the legal action misses a critical point. By 
> > downloading the plug-in AdBlock Plus (ABP) on a massive scale, users do 
> > vote with their mice against the growing invasiveness of digital 
> > advertising. Therefore, suing Eyeo, the company that maintains ABP, is 
> > like using Aspirin to fight cancer. A different approach is required but 
> > very few seem ready to face that fact."
> >
> > http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/12/08/the-rise-of-adblock-reveals-a-serious-problem-in-the-advertising-ecosystem/?utm_source=feedburner
> >  
> > <http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/12/08/the-rise-of-adblock-reveals-a-serious-problem-in-the-advertising-ecosystem/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+monday-note+(Monday+Note)>
> >  &utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+monday-note+(Monday+Note)
> >
> >
> >
> > Fat fingered from a portable device...disregard errurs
> >
> > John Wunderlich
> > Privacist
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Wunderlich 
> 
> Fat fingered from a mobile device
> Pleez 4give spelling errurz!
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/