Written reviews and compilations

[Redglyph]

To be fair, the personalized ads suck. Not as much as non personalized, but they do suck. So obviously the companies algorithms aren't good enough at guessing my wants, and definitely not at the right time. I'm pretty convinced other types of marketing is much more effective, like influencers, streamers and product placement. It's obvious my kids are impacted by what streamers/Youtubers say and show.

I can't decide which is best. Seeing irrelevant ads feels like I'm a polluted area, but I'm sure it won't entice me, and seeing relevant ads is distracting and insidious. There's no upside either way, it's just a necessary evil (or is it?).

I agree that influencers can be very effective, but I don't mind so much because generally if I watch/read them, it's an active decision made when I'm already interested in something. It can bias the decision but that is inevitable anyway since there's no way to have the full knowledge of products before buying them. "generally" though, I'm sure it sometimes makes me desire something I wouldn't want otherwise.

 

[SveNitoR]

Never looked at NoScript, but I'm surprised that any modern website would be functional without JavaScript. Do you have to whitelist everything you want to actually work? Does it come with a default whitelist containing "well known" sites? Wouldn't it be easier to just not visit sites that you don't trust enough to enable JavaScript for?

Good questions!

Most websites don't work well. Text is displayed, but usually not pictures and menus don't work most of the time.

I have to whitelist everything manually, no whitelist. I can do it temporarily or permanently.

It is a chore sometimes, but it allows me to visit pages I don't know well, and also to block elements I dislike on all pages (like Facebook plugins). I can also learn what services are required and what services don't add anything to my experience on the page.

The biggest drawback is that sometimes I'll fill out a form or try to buy something, only to realize I haven't allowed something in NoScript. Most of the time, this means I have to do redo everything again.

 

[SveNitoR]

I can't decide which is best. Seeing irrelevant ads feels like I'm a polluted area, but I'm sure it won't entice me, and seeing relevant ads is distracting and insidious. There's no upside either way, it's just a necessary evil (or is it?).

I agree that influencers can be very effective, but I don't mind so much because generally if I watch/read them, it's an active decision made when I'm already interested in something. It can bias the decision but that is inevitable anyway since there's no way to have the full knowledge of products before buying them. "generally" though, I'm sure it sometimes makes me desire something I wouldn't want otherwise.

I buy enough non essential stuff anyway, so less targeting seems like the better choice for me.

 

[Taluntain]

Never looked at NoScript, but I'm surprised that any modern website would be functional without JavaScript. Do you have to whitelist everything you want to actually work? Does it come with a default whitelist containing "well known" sites? Wouldn't it be easier to just not visit sites that you don't trust enough to enable JavaScript for?

Addons like NoScript are problematic because they've become relatively widespread along with ad blockers because people read online that they "need" them and then install them, but don't really know anything about them or how they work. Then webmasters regularly get complaints about various website and/or forum functions "not working" and requests to fix "our" problems, when in fact it's the various addons that people install that are breaking normal functionality.

 

[SveNitoR]

Addons like NoScript are problematic because they've become relatively widespread along with ad blockers because people read online that they "need" them and then install them, but don't really know anything about them or how they work. Then webmasters regularly get complaints about various website and/or forum functions "not working" and requests to fix "our" problems, when in fact it's the various addons that people install that are breaking normal functionality.

Yeah, it will break things. I'd not recommend noscript to most people, since it requires a lot of tinkering.

Priority one for most people when a web page is acting up should probably be to reload it without plug-ins.

 

[SveNitoR]

Regarding earlier posts about gathering information: Meta fined for illegal gathering and usage of ad data.

 

[Ripper]

Regarding earlier posts about gathering information: Meta fined for illegal gathering and usage of ad data.

Another adverising company busted for abusing people's data? Must be a Thursday.

 

[Taluntain]

They aren't strictly advertising companies, though they do monetize their platforms with advertisements. Realistically, using either Google's or FB's platforms you're giving up way more privacy voluntarily than merely advertising-wise, though obviously that's no excuse for their failing to play by the rules. With dozens of billions of profits, clearly the fines are set much too low for behemoths like them to really care about a few (hundred) occasional millions in fines. They merely consider them the cost of doing business.

The real question here is why the fines are still being kept so low as to be inconsequential for the biggest players.

 

[Pladio]

The fines are meant for companies to change their behaviours, not go bankrupt.

As an example, I work for a UK bank. Another bank was recently fined because its traders divulged secret information on Whatsapp.

JPMorgan fined $200 million for letting workers use WhatsApp to evade regulators

Regulators announced Friday that JPMorgan Securities admitted to bookkeeping failures and agreed to pay $200 million to settle the charges.

www.cnbc.com

You would think the fine is useless because it's so low, but now all employees of that bank, others and my bank are no longer allowed to use Whatsapp or any other form of personal communications. I am not a trader either, my work could barely count as being secret Still, I can't use my phone anymore to even let me boss know I'll be late to a meeting.

The fines are set to a point whereby they are seen as punishing enough for the same behaviour not to happen again without causing profits to disappear fully. Essentially, just an incentive to change. If they get caught again, the fine would be much higher.

 

[Ripper]

They aren't strictly advertising companies, though they do monetize their platforms with advertisements. Realistically, using either Google's or FB's platforms you're giving up way more privacy voluntarily than merely advertising-wise, though obviously that's no excuse for their failing to play by the rules. With dozens of billions of profits, clearly the fines are set much too low for behemoths like them to really care about a few (hundred) occasional millions in fines. They merely consider them the cost of doing business.

The real question here is why the fines are still being kept so low as to be inconsequential for the biggest players.

The thing is, I don't think it's that useful to conceptualise online advertising companies just as the guys that you do business with as a site owner, who do the deals and give you the code to embed. They essentially have two jobs - to gather as much data as possible about visitors (uniquely identifying them if possible), and to feed them adverts based on a profile that's been built up. The thing is, each entity is not simply relying on the data they themselves have gathered - there is an ecosystem by which this data is traded, compiled, etc. The main difference with the Metas and Alphabets of the world is that they are so big, they are almost data gathering/advertising ecosystems unto themselves. But they still have their trackers all over websites for more data, and also own some of these other tracking companies.

For me, the industry has behaved in such a poor way for so long (and been dragged kicking and screaming to these new requirements) that they clearly do not deserve our trust. I don't think building that trust through regulation and the occasional high-profile fine is going to be possible. If I had to propose an idea for better advertising in the future, I think we need something at the browser/web-standard level. I could imagine something like 'the Safe Advertising Sandbox' - where advert code is identified as such, and is then sandboxed and highly restricted in how it can interact with the browser and the rest of the system. Any ads not properly identified and sandboxed get blocked.

In that case, I would say don't even have an option to block ads completely - we have control of the level of permission we want to grant the sandbox, and if we can set it restrictively there's no need to worry (at least for security and privacy-minded folks like me), and I'd be more likely to come down on your side when it comes to using adblockers that prevent all reasonable advertising. Of course I understand the commercial necessity of advertising, but for me the industry has sort of torn up the contract for a respectful relationship. I think we need solutions that don't rely on, "It's OK, you can trust us now."

 

[Taluntain]

The thing is, I don't think it's that useful to conceptualise online advertising companies just as the guys that you do business with as a site owner, who do the deals and give you the code to embed.

I'm not, I just pointed out the distinction between companies whose sole business is advertising vs. others like Meta and Alphabet.

In that case, I would say don't even have an option to block ads completely - we have control of the level of permission we want to grant the sandbox, and if we can set it restrictively there's no need to worry

Well, you know that that's never going to happen. When people get used to being able to block all ads, you can introduce the best and safest system imaginable to display ads that would satisfy even people like yourself, but the likelihood of any of them turning ads back on voluntarily is close to zero. So this is really a philosophical debate because it's the ease of use of ad blockers and their legality today that's enabled their widespread use, not the general population's overwhelming fear for their privacy. When presented with an option with no negative consequences for the chooser (that doesn't in exist in real life), i.e. "Would you like to see ads? Y/N", it's clear what most people's choice will be online.

 

[Ripper]

I can only speak for 'even people like me', I suppose. But I think you underestimate the effect that might have (in terms of those concerned primarily about security and privacy). As you well know, there is barely a good word to be found anywhere about allowing ad-code, and in that sense I kind of understand why you want to put the other side. But if you go looking into the subject, you'll find that every credible objector writing on the subject is talking about the security and privacy issues, not "Ads are so annoying - AMIRITE?!"

I think if we could remedy that concern, it would change the terms of the argument, and a lot of reasonable folks could change their position.

Of course there is going to be a large body of people who just block all adverts unthinkingly, and this won't speak to them, but I think you're stuck with them anyway - I'm talking about people who have considered positions that could be changed. If you think you're going to legislate away people blocking content in their own browser... yikes! I reckon my idea has a better chance of having some impact.

 

[Taluntain]

But if you go looking into the subject, you'll find that every credible objector writing on the subject is talking about the security and privacy issues, not "Ads are so annoying - AMIRITE?!"

We're not talking about writers publishing technical articles on the subject, but the general population whose reach usually doesn't extend beyond installing add-ons. You can hardly base an entire article around hatred or annoyance with ads, but that certainly is a common theme if you ask Joe Average why he's blocking ads.

 

[Pladio]

Many people I know who aren't tech-savvy don't even know adblockers exist, which is why people pay for such things like Youtube Premium. I don't have stats but I am not certain adblocking is as prevalent as you think.

 

[Taluntain]

I don't have stats but I am not certain adblocking is as prevalent as you think.

I do and it is. I've been tracking it a few years back across the sites I manage and even back then it was between 50-60% on most gaming sites. It's only grown since. The percentage will be lower on general audience websites, but still upwards of 40% in my experience.

 

[Ripper]

We're not talking about writers publishing technical articles on the subject, but the general population whose reach usually doesn't extend beyond installing add-ons. You can hardly base an entire article around hatred or annoyance with ads, but that certainly is a common theme if you ask Joe Average why he's blocking ads.

TBH, I think that's a bit too negative about the general population, and what they read and understand. I think there is a huge number of people who understand and worry about these issues.

But again I would say that unless you make adblocking illegal and remove it from easy access (which I would call a 'nuclear' option, to be sure), then you're stuck with freedom of choice. And in that case, there's those whose minds can't be changed, and those whose can. It's only then worth worrying about the latter.

 

[Taluntain]

And in that case, there's those whose minds can't be changed, and those whose can. It's only then worth worrying about the latter.

Anyone who's been on the internet as long as I have will know that the odds of changing anyone's mind online are so minuscule so as to be negligible. And I'm not being pessimistic in the slightest, merely realistic. People online in general enjoy the comfort of selecting cozy echo chambers to dwell in where their beliefs and convictions are not challenged, or at least not seriously, and distance themselves from websites where views opposite to their own are being aired. And where they don't select an echo chamber themselves, a bubble is built for them very quickly by any social network that they join or a SN-like platform based on the content that they access on it. This has been perfected to an art in the last 10+ years.

Now, changing someone's mind by informing them that an action that they did not realize had any negative consequences actually does, I believe that that does have a bit higher chance of success. But it's still an incredibly hard sell when it affects something that is generally perceived as a comfort choice.

 

[Ripper]

Well, I think there's a bit of a conflict between your first sentence and your second paragraph - the chances of changing minds on the internet are negligible, unless it's your point presented in your chosen way?

I tend to agree more with the second half - I think there are way more possibilities for changing people's minds in all sorts of interactions, including online.

 

[Taluntain]

To clarify, I meant changing someone's mind in a discussion that simply comes down to exchanging views, where everyone believes that their own view is correct anyway vs. a discussion in which one side learns something that they were not aware of before.

 

[Ripper]

Sure, and I agree with that. It kind of goes back to what I was banging on about - I think we can rule out those whose positions cannot be changed, because that's just talking into a void.