Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 314 posts

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#141

Post by reaperducer »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #130
reaperducer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the management at traditional media outlets have been conned into believing that they need tracking in order to serve their advertisers. Advertising worked fine before internet tracking was a thing. Everything from Coca-Cola and the New York Times down to Fred's Corner Dry Cleaner and The Podunk Tribune survived and thrived on the old, low-tracking model. It's companies like Google and the other i…

> by falsely convincing them that an ad view on a screen is worth 1,000 times less than an ad view on printed paper What makes you believe that this hypothetical comparison is false? The problem with traditional advertising is that everyone sees it, regardless of their interest in the subject matter or lack thereof. As an advertiser you have to pay to show your ad to a lot of people who aren't likely to be interested…

The problem with traditional advertising is that everyone sees it, regardless of their interest in the subject matter or lack thereof.

This is false. The internet ad tech companies didn't invent marketing demographics. Advertisers who want to sell things to old people advertise on TV shows and in magazines that appeal to old people. Advertisers who want to sell Product X advertise in places where people who want to buy Product X might see it.

No, traditional media doesn't have the granularity or seemingly instant feedback of online ads. But there's a reason that an ad in print has more gravitas and impact on the reader than an online ad. Digital ads are ephemeral, and are forgotten as quickly as they are seen. With the exception of writing an ad in the sand on a wave-washed beach, every single other advertising method has more impact than online ads.

What Google and Facebook brought to the game was targeting.

I wish that was true. If it was, then I wouldn't be bombarded by ads for things I have no interest in from companies in places I can't buy from.

Right now on my Facebook feed:

- Ad for a concert by a band I don't like in a city 600 miles away.

- Ad for homeowners insurance for a house I don't own from an insurance company that doesn't operate in my state.

- Ad for an Xbox video game. I don't own an Xbox, and don't play video games.

- Ad for a business credit card for a business I don't own.

Tell me again about how Silicon Valley's ad tech industry is benefiting both me, and the advertisers.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#142

Post by Moru »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #120
reaperducer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the management at traditional media outlets have been conned into believing that they need tracking in order to serve their advertisers. Advertising worked fine before internet tracking was a thing. Everything from Coca-Cola and the New York Times down to Fred's Corner Dry Cleaner and The Podunk Tribune survived and thrived on the old, low-tracking model. It's companies like Google and the other i…

> There's a cliché about "the internet killed newspapers." No, internet ad companies killed newspapers by falsely convincing them that an ad view on a screen is worth 1,000 times less than an ad view on printed paper, so they have to make up the difference by harvesting everyone's data. I think it's a little bit of both. Internet commoditized newspapers and unbundled them, allowing us to peruse individual articles wi…

Every time I help a customer with anything I ask if they want free help with adblocker install. This helps them and also our internet bandwidth in the long run.

Personally I can't stand all attention grabbing moving things so have been using all sorts of adblockers since they first showed up. Before then I played around with custom css in netscape and blocking in the hosts file, running a local webserver for faster blocking instead of blackholing stuff. uBlock is so much easier to use :-)

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#143

Post by brynjolf »

kbenson wrote: post #86
bscphil wrote: post #30

Why are different organizations taking such an affront to Firefox's tracking protection? I don't have this problem at WaPo with uBlock + uMatrix. As far as I understand it only takes effect by default in private browsing mode. I think it's more crucial than ever that everyone use adblockers and refuse to support sites that retaliate with anti-social behavior. Yes, news orgs need funding, but there's no requirement th…

Well, if WaPo makes a distinction between subscribers and non-subscribers for this behavior (I'm not sure if they do or don't), they they are very clearly giving you a choice for how to pay for your content, with your money or with whatever information that can get out of you, and to that end they don't want you to block that because they actually want to get something of value out of the transaction. > I think it's…

They still track you if you pay though

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#144

Post by michaelmrose »

tomc1985 wrote: post #43
michaelmrose wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the newspapers entire value is tied to a fraction of the staff and they wonder why we are all collectively disinterested in funding their worthless printing presses, managers, secretaries, and buildings?

You mean the institutional infrastructure that allows journalists to do their jobs with some measure of job security and editorial integrity? (not that there's a whole lot of that left... but its still better than getting news from facebook and youtube vloggers)

The integrity lies in the people and connections between same none of that lies in the building or the dead weight.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#145

Post by reitanqild »

bscphil wrote: post #140
blub wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how WaPo does this, but all newspapers I've tried including NYT and The Guardian and The Economist have a lot of tracking in their apps even for subscribers. So it's a crap deal.

Yep, this is what really makes me mad. You can't argue that alternatives to tracking don't exist when no one is actually trying the alternatives. You can't choose between paying and getting tracked; it's get tracked regardless and hear them nag you to pay them for the privilege.

Living billboard here:

While ars technica is not a newspaper they often have posts that some of us find interesting.

They turn off ads and tracking for all but the lowest tiers.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#146

Post by tannhaeuser »

lysium wrote: post #60
davidgh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I hope someone comes up with a “Netflix for online content”. I’m not going to subscribe to a dozen news sites individually and I also don’t want to make a purchase decision, even if tiny, every time I visit a site. For me a bundle of the top 10-15 high-quality news sites, perhaps letting me choose from different packages at different price points, and allocate the revenue to sites based on which content I read…

The Germans kind of have that (formerly called GEZ) and people complain about that, too! It pays for the wrong content! And the private news sites hate it, too! It’s an unfair advantage! I don’t think it will make a difference if a private company collects the cash, but who knows?

I'm not sure compulsary payment a la GEZ and culture flat rates is the way forward, to say the least. With the recent cut-backs, public TV broadcasters have become outlets for low-quality pseudo-scandinavian crime series and similar palliative care. Also, they've lost any public opinion leadership they had with their media blackout towards the new populist parties. The only asset left are their talk-radio pearls.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#147

Post by hamilyon2 »

bscphil wrote: post #30

Why are different organizations taking such an affront to Firefox's tracking protection? I don't have this problem at WaPo with uBlock + uMatrix. As far as I understand it only takes effect by default in private browsing mode. I think it's more crucial than ever that everyone use adblockers and refuse to support sites that retaliate with anti-social behavior. Yes, news orgs need funding, but there's no requirement th…

It is actually voluntary to use these sites. I would understand your argument if it was illegal to use ad blocker. But it is not. Ad model works for publishers just fine, it is fully up to them what to show on their site to people with ad blockers. (edited: english grammar)

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#148

Post by mirimir »

x0x0 wrote: post #24
mirimir wrote: post #13

I see the same behavior (v52.8.0). Damn. Also, from a German IPv4: > The new European data protection law requires us to inform you of the following before you use our website: > We use cookies and other technologies to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests. By clicking “I agree” below, you c…

There is also this https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/ ? where the Post offers a free sub, a basic sub (requiring consent to the use of cookies and tracking by us), and a Premium EU ad-free sub (No on-site advertising or third-party ad tracking).

No, choosing "free" prompts the agreement to track prompt. And you must agree in order to proceed.

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#149

Post by bscphil »

yubiox wrote: post #139
SCAQTony wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really blocking ads or are we really blocking malware? Calling our privacy tools adblockers is a misnomer don't you think for any site can simple put ad in a div and not get it blocked.

Are there any ads that aren't just scams anyway?

"Scams" is too strong, but I don't think "undesirable" would be. Think about it: ads are nearly always unwanted. You can tell because advertisers have to pay to put their content in front of users. If consumers wanted to see ads, media would put in ads paid or not to better compete for viewers. Instead, "premium" sources are often ad-free (see Spotify, HBO, better movie theaters, etc).

I think the reason for this is that ads don't exist to inform consumers about things they might want to purchase. Instead, advertisers have learned to manipulate viewers to create desire for their products. The effectiveness of ads is almost entirely non-rational. Watching ads is effectively watching corporate propaganda, in many different degrees of harmfulness.

I'm admittedly an idealist. But something seems amiss to me when the supposed only way to pay for journalism (which exists to inform the public) is to embed advertisements (which exist to misinform the public).

Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection

#150

Post by HenryBemis »

yubiox wrote: post #139
SCAQTony wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really blocking ads or are we really blocking malware? Calling our privacy tools adblockers is a misnomer don't you think for any site can simple put ad in a div and not get it blocked.

Are there any ads that aren't just scams anyway?

Yes. Plenty.
Post reply on HN