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

["T.Rob" < >]

Looking at the Lumascape and the recent posts about the life of an ad 
auction, that's a tough question to answer.  If I understood it correctly, 
that ad buy goes through many degrees of separation from the browser.  How 
does that fit into...

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

...at all?  Even if on the network graph we said that each of these entities 
is adjacent to me and I'm the hub, the web site I'm browsing provides the 
context that ties it all together and of necessity violates both of these 
criteria to make it work.  There's probably zero or fewer ads that fit this 
description.

Or were you proposing what a future ad ecosystem should look like and I 
misunderstood?

-- T.Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doc Searls 
> [mailto:
 ]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 18:20 PM
> To: ProjectVRM list
> Cc: T.Rob; Mike O'Neill; Don Marti
> Subject: [projectvrm] Degrees and kinds of acceptable ads — a wheat-and-
> chaff exercise
> 
> 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-----
> >