[projectvrm] Degrees and kinds of acceptable ads — a wheat-and-chaff exercise

[Doc Searls < >]

In discussions over the last few days it has become clear that we need to 
make some sharp categorical distinctions between kinds of advertising. 

Adblock Plus's Manifesto <https://acceptableads.org/en/>....

        • Acceptable Ads are not annoying.
        • Acceptable Ads do not disrupt or distort the page content we're 
trying to read.
        • Acceptable Ads are transparent with us about being an ad.
        • Acceptable Ads are effective without shouting at us.
        • Acceptable Ads are appropriate to the site that we are on.

... is all judgement-call stuff. And it doesn't address tracking or creepy 
personalization. We need something clearer than that.

For guidance, look at the Respect Trust Framework's first promise here:

<http://openidentityexchange.org/trust-frameworks/respect-trust-framework/>

"We will respect each other's digital boundaries."

So let's say an individual's boundaries are these:

        Don' t track me outside your site
        Don't give data you gather about me to other parties

What kind of advertising would this allow, and not allow?

And what about other boundaries?

I'm looking here to develop clear taxonomies of kinds of advertising that an 
individual visitor to a site might or might not welcome. 

These are matters of interest to PDEC <http://pde.cc> and Customer Commons 
<http://customercommons.org> — and to advertisers and agencies — as well as 
to ProjectVRM.

Doc

(I'm splitting this off the thread below, which I want to preserve as well.)

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Mike O'Neill 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mozilla's TP is good. It still relies on a curated list rather than 
> behaviour detecting like PrivacyBadger but presumably the list will be 
> pruned of servers that properly respect DNT.
> 
> It is not quite there yet, though the code & process is wonderfully 
> transparent. Requests still go out to "blocked" resources but I reported  
> the bug & it is getting fixed. 
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1100024
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Marti 
>> [mailto:
 ]
>> Sent: 09 December 2014 15:45
>> To: T.Rob
>> Cc: 'Wunderlich, John'; 'Doc Searls'; 'ProjectVRM list'; 'Ben Williams'
>> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] The Rise of AdBlock Reveals A Serious Problem in 
>> the
>> Advertising Ecosystem | Monday Note
>> 
>> 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/
>> 
 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/
> Charset: utf-8
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUhyNEAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JvN4IAMUcF21pTEtWIm+VQztpnb/P
> BAapuO3Hk0dTxrwBSVDPQeoOJDk0QKW0uDWWaYSppxKZkk5dVjXcAynoLY5nI6UU
> qxpNnGUh+y7EaC6JzZHsxt1DLPG3uRbPOqg5UjHa/dqIHVNylaSokwEvE0L5wHNI
> 7lmOtZsa6uLBzk/EWgeMMT8gwF6VP8o8OnJLvjwi+sE5y35jqx0Icbkb30KWn+Ua
> H1MZWBxPa5/oLyGaNttBFVY/3JpXLsAVu+nlrF+LvXJG5mqfN0PqRF4Sp8Iyb4v+
> k0wcRrzj/ACh7Aj1HCjGlWj9qfiDeHPCPjZEMP/Zz7a3Qi8HzXVzVMoxdAzNWxA=
> =2DHD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>