Trackers • Hacker News Board

Re: Trackers

#201

Post by joshmanders » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #195

joshmanders wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people fight the trackers by installing adblockers, because lets face it, the biggest offenders are ad companies. And all ad blockers are in whitelist mode by default, and nobody cares enough to turn it to blacklist mode, as a result the guys who display tasteful, unintrusive, non tracking ads, get caught in the crossfire, and the go to argument by these people is "It's my right to block anything I want." but in…

Yes, but I think it is a step (or rather several steps) too far to blame the users here. The advertising industry decided to take what it could so here we are today. Web properties have had ample time and opportunity to dial up the heat on the agencies and the ad-tech companies to stop this all from happening but the money was just too good. So now the unintrusive, non tracking ads (the good guys, if you wish) will b…

I would just like to say I enjoyed this discussion. Most people don't like my stance on adblocking (I'm not totally against it, I use and love uBlock Origin) and it usually ends up with me being downvoted to oblivion for having an alternative opinion.

Have a good weekend and happy high five Friday.

Re: Trackers

#202

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

joshmanders wrote: post #201

jacquesm wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but I think it is a step (or rather several steps) too far to blame the users here. The advertising industry decided to take what it could so here we are today. Web properties have had ample time and opportunity to dial up the heat on the agencies and the ad-tech companies to stop this all from happening but the money was just too good. So now the unintrusive, non tracking ads (the good guys, if you wish) will b…

I would just like to say I enjoyed this discussion. Most people don't like my stance on adblocking (I'm not totally against it, I use and love uBlock Origin) and it usually ends up with me being downvoted to oblivion for having an alternative opinion. Have a good weekend and happy high five Friday.

The same to you. Thank you for the exchange and have a nice weekend!

Re: Trackers

#203

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 9:18 PM UTC

shostack wrote: post #200

jacquesm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads and tracking going hand-in-hand is the problem. If the advertising industry had not embraced tracking I think that the backlash against advertising would not be as strong as it is. It should be possible to receive an advert without also giving up a huge chunk of privacy.

That's one stance, but do you think it results in a more relevant experience for most people (emphasis on "most) viewing ads when they see products that are more likely to interest them (because of audience data or retargeting data) vs. a generic ad? And from an advertiser standpoint, if the targeted approach is vastly more profitable than the untargeted approach of how things worked in the early Mad Men days (and it…

> That's one stance, but do you think it results in a more relevant experience for most people (emphasis on "most) viewing ads when they see products that are more likely to interest them (because of audience data or retargeting data) vs. a generic ad?

They may spend less money, so it is clearly a 'win' for the advertiser and the property to do as much tracking and profiling as they can get away with (and they do).

> And from an advertiser standpoint, if the targeted approach is vastly more profitable than the untargeted approach of how things worked in the early Mad Men days (and it most definitely is), I have to say I can't really blame them for taking that path.

I don't blame them either, but then they should not blame the users for the inevitable backlash.

> I'd be curious if there are any companies out there who position themselves as "ethical advertisers" and do what you outlined in terms of advertising without the privacy tradeoff.

Unfortunately the good are suffering with the bad.

> I'd also be curious how they might fare against competitors who don't take that stance.

They made less money in the short term. But in the longer term there may be some life there, too early to tell.

> Again, people are voting with their wallets, and right now they are saying that they are ok giving up their data in exchange for free content, and that they'll continue buying things from companies who leverage said data to communicate with them.

That's mostly because people have no idea what is in their profiles in the various silos.

It's a bit like getting people to click blindfolded on a EULA and then later to say 'hey, you agreed to this', which in my opinion is simply not fair and taking advantage.

Re: Trackers

#204

Post by shostack » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #203

shostack wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one stance, but do you think it results in a more relevant experience for most people (emphasis on "most) viewing ads when they see products that are more likely to interest them (because of audience data or retargeting data) vs. a generic ad? And from an advertiser standpoint, if the targeted approach is vastly more profitable than the untargeted approach of how things worked in the early Mad Men days (and it…

> That's one stance, but do you think it results in a more relevant experience for most people (emphasis on "most) viewing ads when they see products that are more likely to interest them (because of audience data or retargeting data) vs. a generic ad? They may spend less money, so it is clearly a 'win' for the advertiser and the property to do as much tracking and profiling as they can get away with (and they do). >…

I think your last point on comparing against EULA's isn't the best fit here. If I see an ad, the actual data that led to me seeing that ad doesn't suddenly make the product I'm seeing an ad for less of what I might need. It might make me question the business I would buy it from, but there's a big difference between agreeing to purchase something where the terms of the transaction are known (you are buying X, this is the return policy, etc.) vs. clicking an EULA where you decided not to read it (which is the other reason I think this was a poor example...the EULA is there, people just choose not to read it).

Re: Trackers

#205

Post by anexprogrammer » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

sdoering wrote: post #91

davb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that a lot of content producers have feel entitled to users' participation in analytics at all. Sure, it may be frustrating when a user blocks tracking tools (especially self hosted ones) but that's the their choice. We got by for decades without analysing user habits (even in a local only context, without correlation with third party data). There are so few examples of cases where analysing use…

In the "good ol' days" (TM the shop-owners in a community knew quite a lot about their customers. Oh Mary just gave birth, Henry is currently sick, Walter likes his coffee a little stronger, James a little weaker (something with his stomach). Danielle drinks only tee, has two kids and the marriage is not really happy. And so on. A lot bordered on gossip, a lot was very valid and relevant information. People talked. S…

For a single store, or family business, that's equitable and I'd opt in by shopping there or visiting the website. On the web the small business is often the artisanal butcher, small crafts or the one HN reader running their side project trying to compete with IBM. Happy to share some data. Happy to help and try and support by giving you my money.

The web is mostly not like this. The ad and tracker networks are on multiple sites and are so agressive and successful at retargeting that it almost induces paranoia. Sadly out of ignorance the innocent small business is using a network that's borg like in their assimilation of everywhere.

Tesco, Forbes and the agressively multi round funded startups can fuck off. Especially as they give no shits for apparently anything. Fuck that man, get bigger fast. Let me show you this ad for VisualThing++ for the 96th time, even though it's well over a week since you accidentally clicked on the maximise on rollover sound playing flash abortion.

Back when I was being persuaded that all advertising and tracking online was becoming evil I'd innocently visit somewhere work connected say SEOMoz, as was, then see ads for them EVERYWHERE, for ages. Like the bad commission only salesman who ruins parties and friendships with only one topic of conversation I'd go read something in the evening on sports and the ads would be having a conversation about Moz, or random startup service we looked at for work. WTF man fuck off and stop following me!

Even on the web the good ol days, as you describe them, wouldn't be so bad, but that's not what we have. Not even close.

Re: Trackers

#206

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 10:32 PM UTC

shostack wrote: post #204

jacquesm wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's one stance, but do you think it results in a more relevant experience for most people (emphasis on "most) viewing ads when they see products that are more likely to interest them (because of audience data or retargeting data) vs. a generic ad? They may spend less money, so it is clearly a 'win' for the advertiser and the property to do as much tracking and profiling as they can get away with (and they do). >…

I think your last point on comparing against EULA's isn't the best fit here. If I see an ad, the actual data that led to me seeing that ad doesn't suddenly make the product I'm seeing an ad for less of what I might need. It might make me question the business I would buy it from, but there's a big difference between agreeing to purchase something where the terms of the transaction are known (you are buying X, this is…

Ah, but you got the timing wrong. The EULA reference is about the terms and conditions under which you are viewing the website - and therefore the advertising and all associated tracking mechanisms -, this happens prior to you viewing the ad and once you are on the page you are somehow magically bound by these terms but all the bad stuff has already happened.

Re: Trackers

#207

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 10:41 PM UTC

lloyddobbler wrote: post #164

monochromatic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen a single site with the EU cookie warning saying "click here if you're ok with cookies, or click over there if you'd rather we didn't use them." It's always "click here to proceed with cookies, or fuck off."

As it should be. It's none of our "right" to visit any particular site. The person who sets up the site gets to identify the terms of use - since they're the one footing the bill for it. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative - you can go somewhere else. If enough people do that, the person who owns the site loses out. But I can't see why it's not entirely within a provider's rights to say "if you use our serv…

Well, the whole thing is kind of academic anyway. I can tell my browser to say "sure, I accept cookies!" and then drop them on the floor.

Re: Trackers

#208

Post by zem » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #15

Believe it or not, some stores sympathise with you. They might actually be run by people like you, people who read your story. They still want to know how you proceed round the store, because that helps them optimise shelf layout, identify hard-to-find items, and so on. So yes, they might use the standard in-store CCTV to observe your journeys, and when they figure that you and people like you always have difficulty…

bad analogy; no one is smashing your cctv cameras; they're just donning an invisibility cloak on the way in. as is their right, even if nethack would like to claim otherwise :).

Re: Trackers

#209

Post by shostack » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #206

shostack wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your last point on comparing against EULA's isn't the best fit here. If I see an ad, the actual data that led to me seeing that ad doesn't suddenly make the product I'm seeing an ad for less of what I might need. It might make me question the business I would buy it from, but there's a big difference between agreeing to purchase something where the terms of the transaction are known (you are buying X, this is…

Ah, but you got the timing wrong. The EULA reference is about the terms and conditions under which you are viewing the website - and therefore the advertising and all associated tracking mechanisms -, this happens prior to you viewing the ad and once you are on the page you are somehow magically bound by these terms but all the bad stuff has already happened.

Ah--sorry, I thought you were drawing an analogy against software installation EULA's that people typically click through.

I definitely concede this is a valid point in that visitors aren't exactly given a chance to opt out. I think we can both agree that if it were opt in, that wouldn't satisfy advertisers, but I think the EU approach around cookies is a bit heavy handed and ruins web experiences. I wonder if there isn't a happy middle ground somewhere.

Again, make no mistake, I think users should be in control of their data and data ownership is going to be one of the hot button issues of the next decade as tracking only becomes more pervasive and data storage becomes cheaper. But I also think that a large number of people like to jump to the conclusion of "I hate advertising" while at the same time buying stuff because of relevant, highly-targeted ads. What people don't realize is that publishers and such would have to resort to even more aggressive placements and approaches to make up the greater lack of revenue they'd suffer if they weren't able to offer highly-targeted inventory.

Jacques, you are definitely one of the standout posters on HN and I've come to recognize and respect your viewpoints as someone who has a pretty solid understanding of the ad industry and its various components. While I appreciate the perspective you painted in this piece, I'd challenge you to play devil's advocate and write another version of the story from the standpoint of an advertiser, a publisher, or a consumer who is less sensitive to advertising than you or I may be. This is a complicated issue and I don't think it is as black and white as your story makes it out to be. Exploring all sides of a problem tends to bring out those gray areas than just a single viewpoint.

Plus I'm a fan of your writing style, so I'd love to see this sort of analogy extended to the other players in the game ;)

Re: Trackers

#210

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Mar 11, 2016, 11:48 PM UTC

shostack wrote: post #209

jacquesm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but you got the timing wrong. The EULA reference is about the terms and conditions under which you are viewing the website - and therefore the advertising and all associated tracking mechanisms -, this happens prior to you viewing the ad and once you are on the page you are somehow magically bound by these terms but all the bad stuff has already happened.

Ah--sorry, I thought you were drawing an analogy against software installation EULA's that people typically click through. I definitely concede this is a valid point in that visitors aren't exactly given a chance to opt out. I think we can both agree that if it were opt in, that wouldn't satisfy advertisers, but I think the EU approach around cookies is a bit heavy handed and ruins web experiences. I wonder if there…

Tough challenge, but I just might take you up on that. Keep in mind it took me > than a month in wall clock time to write this post so it will be a while if anything comes of it. I don't write these things in one go, I write an outline, let them sit for a bit, then update and bit by bit it becomes what I'd like to send out. So no 'quick response time' on anything like this.

But that's definitely a valid request, the viewpoint shift alone would be worth doing because it may help to figure out what could be done instead.

I think the publisher is the most interesting perspective of the options you listed and one that I can identify with.