Just did the same. With uBlock and Ghostery on I get 3 trackers. With them off I get 22 trackers. I think maybe if you let one's script run it then loads a bunch of others.
Another axe to grind against a publication that doesn't like one individual that runs the twitter feed. Of course it isn't pointed out for anyone else.
In recent weeks the Guardian has been running a series of articles about privacy online. The articles have been good and rare in that they included original journalism.
I think that calling the newspaper out for the number of trackers is fair since it shows a mismatch between the behaviour of the company and the tone of the articles.
Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" -- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical.
Hell, my blog has Google Analytics and such on it and so I feel like I'm a hypocritic since I use uBlock Origin (with quite restrictive settings). I do intend to remove the analytics/trackers at some point (actually, I plan to move to a completely static site and "redo" the whole thing -- I haven't even turned on HTTPS yet!), but I've been neglecting the site for years so there's a lot of work to do and, TBH, it really isn't very high on my priority list.
I agree with the general premise of this tweet, though. If you're going to call out others for doing something (i.e. tracking users), you should first make sure that you aren't doing it the same thing. At the least, don't be a part of the very thing that you're bitching about.
They're centre-left, like the european social democractic mainstream, not against market economy. You should look elsewhere if you want a paper that doesn't bow to commercial interests.
> Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" -- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical.
They might not be doing it for that purpose. They only help collect data in exchange for better ad service. The data lives on, however, and someone else uses it for surveillance and tracking.
I used a self-hosted Piwik (Matomo) instance for analytics at my previous job for a few years. It worked fine for my basic needs and has a great API that I used for custom reports, but I wasn’t doing anything terribly complex. I recommend it, especially if you have full control of the decision and time to learn a bit about it.
Self-hosted analytics like Matomo tell you who visited your site for how long and from what IP address and what country, etc. But is this the only reason that people run trackers? I thought people ran trackers for the following reasons (in addition to analytics):
(1) To get targeted ads, and thereby money because you showed a targeted ad. So if the Doubleclick tracker you embedded on your site sees that your visitors are watching lots of dog videos, they can serve you ads for dog food. I suppose (in theory) you could not embed the Doubleclick tracker and instead send Doubleclick the info you collected with your own self-hosted analytics, and get Doubleclick to send you the dog food ad which you insert into your site yourself.
(2) To improve ranking on Google search. I've read that running Google Analytics improves your search ranking as opposed to letting Google simply crawl your site.
And other reasons too?
I welcome any corrections if I'm gravely misunderstanding the technology and motivations.
Google and Facebook also have personal information about users which a self-hosted / privacy respecting solution inherently doesn't, such as gender, age, "likes", etc. I haven't used these analytics platforms myself, so I don't know how much of such data they reveal to customers.
That's not covert if the blocker can see them. The headline had me imagining the Guardian site was proxying tracking data to these 58 other trackers from their own client-side tracking that goes back to their origin.
But nope, just the usual tracking script/cookie/beacon nonsense.
I co-run a network of websites that are ad supported. We'd consider our network to be quite optimized in terms of maximizing ad value. If you're unfamiliar with online advertising, 58 tracking services sounds like a lot. To me that just sounds like "optimized" header bidding -- ensuring you're (the publisher) getting the best value for the ads you're displaying. Google does a ton of work ensuring malicious content is not being served, but of course the transfer of user data (which could be considered malicious) is fundamental to their business model, as well as the business models of every company that serves ads to their users. And it's the wild west where that's concerned -- whoever can make the "best" use of the data will pay the highest price.
This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business.
Realistically, if 58 tracking services watching what you're doing is scary to you, you'd better be prepared to either: a.) pay your worth or b.) see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished.
The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - will stay. The good content will be kept afloat by donations. The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense". The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear.
The Internet would become leaner, but I can't see how it would not also become better.
> The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - will stay.
That's assuming these people have other jobs (which will have to somehow be funded by something other than ads or selling data -- bye bye 90% of Silicon Valley.) Having other jobs means they won't be able to spend as much time on it and quality will suffer.
> The good content will be kept afloat by donations.
Donations often don't stretch beyond what's required to do the work that's been done before (people don't often donate once the donation goal has been reached.) This stifles growth.
> The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense".
So companies that derive their value from the content they produce and sell ads on have to write off their entire business model as a "marketing expense". Good idea. Say goodbye to virtually all online publishing that isn't paywalled already.
> The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear.
You mean like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter...?
If everyone suddenly installed and ran an aggressive ad-blocker, we could strangle all of the tracking networks overnight and the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place.
People who refuse to concede that allowing ads is functionally the same thing as inviting third parties to monitor your browsing patterns and invade your privacy are being disingenuous.
It's easy to see how "the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place" could be true while "some of the world's [previously] most popular services would operate" could be false at the same time.
In which case see the last part of the post you replied to.
I personally don't mind if web advertising phases out. I have no idea what the alternative is, but web advertising has become a cesspool of privacy invasion and coercive commercial intent that the world is better off without. In this day and age you might imagine that nothing exists in the world but commerce and advertising for that commerce, and without it no one would publish anything. But it's human nature to communicate and share stories and ideas, and if the web advertising industry fell out from under publishers, the web would still exist.
The web existed for many years without pervasive advertising and tracking.
To me the obvious alternative is a return to generally targeted ads as are found on television or in print publications. They are targeted to general audience for the program/publication, and can be served inline with the main content (and therefore not blocked) and require no tracking.
If you have enough visitors it can still be better targeted than television or print. You can A/B test a series of ads, and if it turns out one of them statistically gets clicked less on drop it from the pool.
> see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished.
Or they could run quality ads in a non privacy-invasive manner (just like print ads) and be happy.
> This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business.
Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with so they should've seen it coming, and there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers, and now finally with the law cracking down on it. I personally welcome GDPR and can't wait to see it take effect.
That certainly wouldn't make advertisers or publishers happy. "Quality ads" (from a consumer perspective, I understand what this means) don't make any money, because they aren't nearly as effective. So yeah, if a business carefully balances their spending with their ad earnings, switching to quality ads could destroy their business.
> Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with
My house, my rules. If there are strong market forces that are dictating that publishers change what kind of advertisements they show, so be it. Until then, you're choosing to visit my site, for free. In exchange, I serve you ads that I want you to see, and you get the content you came to see for free.
> there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers
Nothing about this is going to change unless people like you (and I) stop leeching off users who view ads with our ad blockers, or we start paying for our use. People don't ignore ads, by the way, they're quite effective. That's why there's a (massive) market for it.
Except, it's not optimized if I never wanted it in the first place.
And by the way, I already pay over $150 for monthly internet, when I combine phone and cable/fiber, and I pay for about ten premium services including The New York Times, HBO, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, Youtube/Google and Netflix, and I still see ads, so what's going on here? What does an ad-free life actually cost?
Tell me, I want to know. Or was that simply an unrealistic option never actually on the table to begin with?
Not sure where you get this sense of entitlement that nothing you use should cost money to use, when it costs money to build/maintain/run. "I already pay for gas, why should I have to pay the stores I drive to?"
No, free (as in beer) has never been on the table. Free doesn't exist. I suppose an ad-free life costs what the market dictates, which it never has because of ads, thank goodness. I think if people had to pay for everything they use there would be a lot less innovation and certainly far fewer options.
People pay for everything they use, if they didn’t the economy would break.
They just pay indirectly - a cent of each sofa can distributes between the newspapers, product placement tv spots and internet sites that show ads for that soda producer.
If everyone paid directly for what they used the world would surely be a very different place but I see no reason for less innovation or less options.
>be prepared to either: a.) pay your worth or b.) see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished.
Can't wait for this. The other day Facebook's COO said the same, if users want privacy they have to be willing to pay for it. Yet Facebook offer no such paid service.
Some (most?) people are happy to trade their personal data for free access. I am not. I prefer to pay for services I want. There are almost zero services where this is an option.
I think it would be a great feature, too. I'm all for privacy, but also understand the reality of importance that online advertising plays. It would be really interesting if something like GDPR would allow a company to claw back all of the data it provided to 3rd parties if a user decided to change their account from free to paid. Would be really messy technically, but I like it in theory.
I'm Steven Black and these are the hosts files some diligent friends and I continuously curate for you. Try the variant with the social media blocking if you really want to go cold turkey. https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Thanks to you and your friends! I've been using this HOSTS file for years on every device that allows me to edit it. Occasionally something otherwise missed by uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger will be caught by HOSTS and I'll see a nice "Can't connect to web server" message.
Your hosts file is amazing. I killed two hours trying to get decent ad blocking in midori, gave up, and got essentially perfect blocking with your hosts entries in under 5 minutes.
Thanks for the work you do in curating this resource - it's awesome stuff.
Yeah, sorry Wikileaks: absolutely nothing you say is worth trusting anymore, and this comparison of data exfiltration from Facebook with common ad network data collection is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading by my estimation.
This is the problem with wikileaks. This has nothing to do with protecting people, or informing them of shady goings on. Wikileaks doesn't like The Guardian's reporting. So they're trying to claim that they're doing something wrong. In reality every single ad-supported website will do the same thing- including practically every website in existence from Breitbart to WashPo.
So next time wikileaks sends out leaked info about bombs in Syria or intelligence gathering in the US ask yourself this question:
Are they telling you everything, or are they serving their own political agenda?
While I completely agree with you about Wikileaks, and I do like the Guardian's reporting in general, (some of, depending on what and how you count) this tracking is a fact, and it's worth pointing out. On this particular issue, the Guardian is weaker than it could and should be. Especially because it keeps asking you (in a friendly and absoutely tolerable way!) for paid subscriptions. Would they keep tracking me if I paid? I'm fairly sure they would. In which case, meh.
51 comments
[ 6.7 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] thread"How many trackers" and report on media sites.
I feel ashamed I once respected them/him as an outlet of truth but in reality serves only to push a single person's agenda.
I think that calling the newspaper out for the number of trackers is fair since it shows a mismatch between the behaviour of the company and the tone of the articles.
Hell, my blog has Google Analytics and such on it and so I feel like I'm a hypocritic since I use uBlock Origin (with quite restrictive settings). I do intend to remove the analytics/trackers at some point (actually, I plan to move to a completely static site and "redo" the whole thing -- I haven't even turned on HTTPS yet!), but I've been neglecting the site for years so there's a lot of work to do and, TBH, it really isn't very high on my priority list.
I agree with the general premise of this tweet, though. If you're going to call out others for doing something (i.e. tracking users), you should first make sure that you aren't doing it the same thing. At the least, don't be a part of the very thing that you're bitching about.
Wait ‘til you find out where the Graun is based for tax purposes...
Left-wing-ness is just a product that they sell. They don’t believe in it anymore than everyone in McDonald’s head office eats Big Macs every day...
They might not be doing it for that purpose. They only help collect data in exchange for better ad service. The data lives on, however, and someone else uses it for surveillance and tracking.
This way you get data analytics without dispensing user data to third parties.
(1) To get targeted ads, and thereby money because you showed a targeted ad. So if the Doubleclick tracker you embedded on your site sees that your visitors are watching lots of dog videos, they can serve you ads for dog food. I suppose (in theory) you could not embed the Doubleclick tracker and instead send Doubleclick the info you collected with your own self-hosted analytics, and get Doubleclick to send you the dog food ad which you insert into your site yourself.
(2) To improve ranking on Google search. I've read that running Google Analytics improves your search ranking as opposed to letting Google simply crawl your site.
And other reasons too?
I welcome any corrections if I'm gravely misunderstanding the technology and motivations.
But nope, just the usual tracking script/cookie/beacon nonsense.
This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business.
Realistically, if 58 tracking services watching what you're doing is scary to you, you'd better be prepared to either: a.) pay your worth or b.) see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished.
The Internet would become leaner, but I can't see how it would not also become better.
That's assuming these people have other jobs (which will have to somehow be funded by something other than ads or selling data -- bye bye 90% of Silicon Valley.) Having other jobs means they won't be able to spend as much time on it and quality will suffer.
> The good content will be kept afloat by donations.
Donations often don't stretch beyond what's required to do the work that's been done before (people don't often donate once the donation goal has been reached.) This stifles growth.
> The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense".
So companies that derive their value from the content they produce and sell ads on have to write off their entire business model as a "marketing expense". Good idea. Say goodbye to virtually all online publishing that isn't paywalled already.
> The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear. You mean like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter...?
Three of those provide paid-for tiers. The other two that do not, well...
Optimally.
It plays out optimally.
If everyone suddenly installed and ran an aggressive ad-blocker, we could strangle all of the tracking networks overnight and the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place.
People who refuse to concede that allowing ads is functionally the same thing as inviting third parties to monitor your browsing patterns and invade your privacy are being disingenuous.
How would the horse merchants operate if everyone used cars?
How would window fixers survive if there were no stones being thrown?
We'll survive without Facebook or YouTube.
I personally don't mind if web advertising phases out. I have no idea what the alternative is, but web advertising has become a cesspool of privacy invasion and coercive commercial intent that the world is better off without. In this day and age you might imagine that nothing exists in the world but commerce and advertising for that commerce, and without it no one would publish anything. But it's human nature to communicate and share stories and ideas, and if the web advertising industry fell out from under publishers, the web would still exist.
To me the obvious alternative is a return to generally targeted ads as are found on television or in print publications. They are targeted to general audience for the program/publication, and can be served inline with the main content (and therefore not blocked) and require no tracking.
Or they could run quality ads in a non privacy-invasive manner (just like print ads) and be happy.
> This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business.
Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with so they should've seen it coming, and there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers, and now finally with the law cracking down on it. I personally welcome GDPR and can't wait to see it take effect.
That certainly wouldn't make advertisers or publishers happy. "Quality ads" (from a consumer perspective, I understand what this means) don't make any money, because they aren't nearly as effective. So yeah, if a business carefully balances their spending with their ad earnings, switching to quality ads could destroy their business.
> Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with
My house, my rules. If there are strong market forces that are dictating that publishers change what kind of advertisements they show, so be it. Until then, you're choosing to visit my site, for free. In exchange, I serve you ads that I want you to see, and you get the content you came to see for free.
> there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers
Nothing about this is going to change unless people like you (and I) stop leeching off users who view ads with our ad blockers, or we start paying for our use. People don't ignore ads, by the way, they're quite effective. That's why there's a (massive) market for it.
And by the way, I already pay over $150 for monthly internet, when I combine phone and cable/fiber, and I pay for about ten premium services including The New York Times, HBO, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, Youtube/Google and Netflix, and I still see ads, so what's going on here? What does an ad-free life actually cost?
Tell me, I want to know. Or was that simply an unrealistic option never actually on the table to begin with?
No, free (as in beer) has never been on the table. Free doesn't exist. I suppose an ad-free life costs what the market dictates, which it never has because of ads, thank goodness. I think if people had to pay for everything they use there would be a lot less innovation and certainly far fewer options.
They just pay indirectly - a cent of each sofa can distributes between the newspapers, product placement tv spots and internet sites that show ads for that soda producer.
If everyone paid directly for what they used the world would surely be a very different place but I see no reason for less innovation or less options.
Can't wait for this. The other day Facebook's COO said the same, if users want privacy they have to be willing to pay for it. Yet Facebook offer no such paid service.
Some (most?) people are happy to trade their personal data for free access. I am not. I prefer to pay for services I want. There are almost zero services where this is an option.
Thanks for the work you do in curating this resource - it's awesome stuff.
The only downside is now I can't support ad-funded website by whitelisting them in my ad-blocker.
So next time wikileaks sends out leaked info about bombs in Syria or intelligence gathering in the US ask yourself this question:
Are they telling you everything, or are they serving their own political agenda?