> This is damaging to consumer interest and will undermine the Internet.
If that is the case, then people will eventually stop using Firefox and sites will continue to put annoying popups that confusingly say 'We use cookies, do you agree?"
However I doubt that is what users would prefer. I think they would prefer less privacy invading advertisements and more contextually relevant ones.
This seems like a typical response. I'm curious if Mozilla will cave or continue.
While I like the idea of restricting third party cookies, I can understand the advertising businesses argument. They need to know what you want, so you can click on the ad, thereby providing a small amount of revenue to both website and advertiser.
As the article notes, Apple's Safari browser has done this since launch, and is the most popular browser on mobile. There isn't a convincing argument that's going to cause Mozilla to cave here. This isn't a bold new move - it's Mozilla following Apple's lead, given that Microsoft has caused DNT to go into a death spiral.
I'm not sure why Mozilla would care about any business arrangement between some websites and advertisers.
YouTube is supported by advertising, but it doesn't exist _because_ of it. It's possible to imagine a world where users did not tolerate advertising and YouTube found their funding from user subscriptions, product referrals, government funding, or some other means.
To explain it absolutely sober: There are people who actually work in advertising and marketing. Their job, more often than not, is selling something to people that they don't need. That's the kind of people I'm attacking and that should be easy to see from the video I linked.
Google has an advertising division, but largely, they supply services to advertisers. They are as responsible for advertisements they run as TV Channels are for the ads they run during commercial breaks.
Now, taking that claim further and saying we should also include farmers is hyperbole to highlight the fact that your argument is a red herring. But again - I thought we were just having a laugh here.
Google is part of the advertising industry. You cannot separate that two. That makes no sense at all.
Who do you think wants targeting to work? Advertisers buy targeting services – but the ones selling them are companies like Google. That’s what they do.
To want to separate that is completely crazy.
You know, why are we even having this discussion? You know who complained about Mozilla here? Why, yes, it’s the IAB and one of their members is – you guessed it – Google. This is one of the lobby organizations Google is part of.
There are people who actually work in advertising and marketing. Their job, more often than not, is selling something to people that they don't need.
That's a big assumption. Someone also has to sell the things that people do need, or more generally the things that people would genuinely value and have an interest in buying if they knew about them. Advertising done responsibly serves a useful purpose for all concerned. The problem is that a lot of on-line advertising is not done responsibly, and that's why people find it intrusive and annoying and creepy and all those other negative connotations.
Also, marketing and advertising are not the same thing.
I thought it was enough to qualify it with "more often than not".
> Someone also has to sell the things that people do need
I think I can justly say that I purchase far more things that weren't advertised to me than those that were. The 'someone' in this equation is, imho, the people who actually produce stuff.
> Advertising done responsibly serves a useful purpose for all concerned.
Absolutely agree. My point isn't that it's impossible, just that it is rare. So rare, that I think the fury against the people who don't handle it responsibly is justified.
> Also, marketing and advertising are not the same thing.
Wishing people to death really isn't cool. How would you feel if random people on the web told you they wanted you or your family to die?
Disagrement - okay - but calling for people to be killed - not okay, especially not over over something as utterly inconsequential as ads on a damn website. Remember that you just committed a very serious criminal offense with your post. I'm not sure how this reflects on the compony you work for as per your profile.
And here I was thinking I had made it grand enough a hyperbole that it was easy to notice.
Oh and your remark on my company is funny. I leave it to everybody with more than a 1 second attention span to figure out why. Feel free to talk to HR.
Threats like “I'm going to find you and strangle you in your sleep” or “I'm going to set your house on fire” are criminal offenses. Voicing a wish for someone to die in a fire isn't (unless there's a discriminatory nature to the threat). In this case, it wasn't targeted at one person but at a hard to define group.
To be honest, the targeted ads look even more like spam to me. I see ads for FreeAgent (a UK online accounting system) everywhere I go, whether to american sites or european ones. The irony is, I'm already a FreeAgent customer. But I think I searched for "Xero" once (one of FreeAgent's competitors) and so somehow now I'm being hounded by the retargeting systems FreeAgent is using.
++ Chrome will just do whatever is good for Google (and hence other advertisers) unless they get pressured to do anything different. I'm glad to see Mozilla taking the user's side on this.
Chrome eventually added the option to block 3rd party cookies, but it certainly wasn't there to begin with.
I don't think the option is there on their mobile browsers either - it didn't exist on Android when I last looked, and definitely wasn't there on iOS either.
Indeed, and like the article points out, the ANA and IBA just haven't been paying attention. From the article: “By default, Safari blocks third-party cookies, and has since its 2003 debut. The iOS version of Safari has done the same since its 2007 inception.”
By my calculations, there are a lot more devices running Safari than there are running Firefox:
There are 1.25 billion desktops and notebooks in use. According to NetApps Market Share, 17.3% of those use Firefox (216 million), 5.42% use Safari (68 million). There are 400 million iOS devices, all of those have Safari. So Safari is installed on twice as many computing devices than Firefox is. Now, total time spent browsing on desktops vs mobile is not equal, but it's getting there, especially as tablets become dominant.
This conclusion is reached by the author of the article, as well: “In the last 12 months, mobile's share of all browser usage has almost doubled, climbing from 7.2% to 13.2%. At that pace, mobile browsing will account for 20% of the total by the end of April 2014.”
Because they;ll switch to different methods of tracking. For example, you can be tracked almost uniquely by the plugins you currently have installed. It's harder to mask that than to remove a tracking cookie.
Bigoted idiots. This rant is surprisingly similar to press release before every western invasion of a country - freedom, threat to 'small' consumers etc.
"we will lose the opportunity to monitor and protect our privacy"
Really now!!! So my privacy is best served by sharing all my data? This is so Orwellian. Noam Chomsky should have something to say on this :)
> Without third-party cookies, they will not be able to participate in the existing industry system for privacy protection.
Their privacy is still protected, but they can't participate in the privacy protection system! Oh noes!
> They will see an increase in the irrelevant spam advertising served to them
So you're telling me that when you serve ads for "RightWingNews.com, LiberalOasis.com, MotherhoodWTF.com, and SuburbanDaddy.com [and] thousands of small businesses" there's no possible way to find relevant ads without tracking the user?
Using Firefox and AdBlock Plus I actually expect I will continue to see exactly zero irrelevant spam advertising. Still, it's funny to see the mental gymnastics going on when someone obviously wants to exploit people but does not want to admit it.
Well, there will be new ways to embed ads. Like ads between related articles or when you scroll through results and one of them has 6pt "Ad" in the corner but looks exactly like the real search results.
They will find a way to make it really hard to block that stuff based on generic rules or by blocking the servers that serve the ads.
The same argument can be made for not running Flash, JavaScript, or any other technology the site asks you to run in order to run ads. After all, the intent is that you watch those ads to consume the content. If the intent is to require me to watch ads, then the site can be setup to require that. What I download from where is up to me.
I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.
The site is setup to require that you watch ads, that's why they're there. Regardless of the technical meaning of blocking an ad ("not downloading it"), the intent behind it is clear: not viewing the ads. Yes, the same argument can be made for not running Flash or Javascript, it doesn't detract from my point. You're specifically consuming content that was created to be viewed with ads, which is the trade you're making to consume the content. By not doing your part of the trade, you're the one exploiting the site, not the other way around. Regardless of the ethics of tracking people, because you can choose not to consume the content if you don't agree with the ads.
Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already.
However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly.
And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it.
Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
Reading this comment costs you $20. If you don't want to pay, don't read this comment. However, if you read this comment, you owe me $20. By not paying, you are not participating in a fair transaction.
> if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist.
I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy.
> You're not participating in a fair transaction.
You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others.
You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.
I'm ad tolerant; I don't run ad-blockers. This means I get to see all ads. And some of them a really awful. I feel sorry for content creators having to have those on their sites. A 30 minute YouTube video with a 5 minute advert? Those yelling smileys or buzzing mosquitoes? (I politely emails the site owner; I nearly installed ad-block) The really slow loading page-covering ad delaying access to the actual content?
I fully understand why people block ads.
I don't understand why advertisers ever thought that "Annoy the hell out of anyone seeing this advert" was the best way to go.
The point is moot though. I understand why people pirate content - it's easier to get something for free than to pay for it - it doesn't mean it's right.
You're doing the right thing by not installing adblock, but really you should vote with your feet, by just not visiting those sites. As soon as you see ads that annoy you - go away. That's the right thing to do, because then you're not consuming the content. You're always free to consume content or not, but if you do, you should adhere to the rules that the owner of that content set - namely that you also view this ad.
By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting.
That's a fair point, to some extent.
It's no different than pirating stuff
Off the top of my head...
Piracy is illegal, while not watching ads isn't.
In general, when something is sold for a price it's normal to pay so you can buy it, while when ads are displayed in other media there's no expectation that people must stop and look at them and the advertiser knew that up-front.
Consuming pirated content is a security risk if you do the "wrong" thing, while displaying on-line ads is a security risk if you do the "right" thing.
Nobody who runs ads on their site has any right to have visitors view those ads or get impressions/clicks on those ads from visitors. After all, my browser always gets final say in what content loads for me to see, even without adblock.
Damn right! We should also arrest TV viewers who have the temerity to get up from the couch during the ad-breaks. Scummy pirates, how dare they not view the adverts! Send them to jail!
By running AdBlock, you're the one doing the exploiting. It's no different than pirating stuff, you don't have the moral high ground here.
People can and do detect my use of adblock and either ask me to disable it for their site, subscribe to their service, or decide not to serve me the data.
I have every write to request data from you while also instructing my browser not to request ads. You have every right to decide not to serve me any data. Until or unless I actually infringe your copyright, or enter into an agreement to see your ads and then renege, this is not equivalent to piracy.
Whilst I'm not convinced by the IAB's arguments here, it's worth noting that not all sites - indeed, most sites - aren't as easy to target as the examples you give.
Speaking as someone who buys a fair bit of advertising, there are thousands of sites in the inventory of most RTB sellers which I'll just skip over unless their inventory is really cheap, because it's very hard to figure out a single product that most of the site's readership would use.
(Example site - Photobucket. What ads would obviously make money on there?)
Also, for quite a few sites where the core demographic does have some obvious interests, there aren't that many well-paying advertisers for that demo. Retargeting and similar tracking-based advertising systems help fill in the gaps when the core advertisers aren't buying all the inventory.
The part that I particularly like actually is slightly different to that:
> "They'll see untargeted ads, which will look like spam. We have to get this information to them somehow."
Oh really, you have to get this information to me? Seriously? I didn't ask for it, I have no desire for it, no you don't have to. You want to, because someone is paying you to do so. Yet another case of someone thinking they have a right to a business model. No you don't. If it fails it fails. Find something to sell that people want (or at least don't despise enough to actively put you out of business).
The gist of this new behavior is a change from Allow All Cookies to Allow Cookies Only From Visited Domains. This is unlike Block All Third-Party Cookies option that existed in both Firefox and Chrome in the way that third party cookie is still accepted but only if user ever visited that "third-party" website before.
The behavior may be less strict than Block All Third-Party Cookies option and probably won't make much difference for Facebook or Google's tracking cookies (if you use them). But being the new default option means smaller players going to take a direct hit. Which is good.
> "The Internet was created on the foundations of advertising," said Jaffe.
This Jaffe character is factually wrong in most of his statements, but
claiming the above is wrong to the degree of at least blatantly ignorant,
or more likely to the degree of willfully and maliciously misleading.
Well sure, if you're going to take it literally, the foundation of the internet has more to do with software and Linux and TCP than advertising.
The fact is though, and I'm surprised to find that I must be the only HN regular who finds himself working in the world of marketing and advertising, that a hell of a lot of the internet and people working on making it better, not just worse, is paid for by advertising money.
The vitriol that's on display from everybody on this thread is, in a big way, as myopic and ignorant and full of self-righteousness as the guy they're calling names (who I agree is all of the above, yes).
"Some sites nowadays depend on advertising as a revenue stream," is a far cry from "The Internet was created on the foundations of advertising." Reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet, if I had to guess what motivated the people who worked on those early networks, I would say it had more to do with the potential to advance humanity with accessible, near-instant communication than it did the ability to serve ads to people. Ads were not on anyone's mind when they first saw text appear in real-time from thousands of miles away. Ads were just a single application for the new technology, and they came about much later.
“the foundation of the internet has more to do with software and Linux”
Linux is barely 20 years old, the Internet has been around for decades before that. In recent years, it seems like more and more people are using ‘Linux’ in a context where they actually mean ‘Unix’. Just like the Internet and the web are not the same, these distinctions matter.
“ I must be the only HN regular who finds himself working in the world of marketing and advertising”
More than a game, it's an arms race. Both us and the privacy invaders have to make moves, even if the race won't stop. Surely, they'll come up with something else. Something else that we'll have to counter, and so on.
In their blogs, the two groups lambasted Mozilla, predicting dire consequences, including the shuttering of small businesses and small websites, fewer choices for online users, and more ads in Firefox.
Or small businesses will have to bring their revenue in by other means, such as charging real money for valuable content and services, or simply running ads themselves, targeted at their own viewers' likely interests, without relying on third party middlemen. Either of those outcomes sucks for the middlemen, but not so much for anyone else.
Fortunately for the advertisers and the user-as-product platform services, micropayments are mostly still wishful thinking, so they're not likely to see this happen on a wide scale in the immediate future. But if they think small -- or even large -- businesses on the web can only survive by using their ad networks, sooner or later they're going to get a rude awakening about the sustainability of their business model.
I imagine there will be some last gasp effort to legislate that people can't view sites without viewing the ads, shortly before the ad networks finally retreat into obscurity, but that's so user-hostile that I don't see it gaining much traction.
In the meantime, the first team who manage to gain traction with a social network that is totally user-focused and charges a small annual fee for basic features and a few more small fees for top-ups is probably going to be very rich. And for the smaller sites, anyone with enough traffic visiting say a blog to make real money via the ad networks is probably also in a position to negotiate a direct ad deal and cut out the middleman for better returns.
> Either of those outcomes sucks for the middlemen, but not so much for anyone else.
It actually also sucks for the businesses themselves, at least in my case. I'd much rather spend my time creating valuable content for everyone than creating valuable content for a few who pay me.
Of course there are alternatives I can try, I can keep content free and solicit donations, I can create various merchandise or I can directly sell advertising space hosted on my own site. All these options essentially take time away from creating content in the first place. My fear is that I'll be too busy trying to make money to make good content. Ad networks at least have the benefit of a "fire and forget" and having someone manage that whole aspect of my business, leaving me to work on content.
I totally get the whole point of no tracking, I'm not even really against it. I'm just trying to point out that it's not just the big business ad networks that will be affected here.
I sympathise, because I also run a couple of low-traffic web sites purely to share information I've found useful or thoughts that might help others. Then again, I never expected to make any money from those sites, and I don't run ads on them either.
Whatever we might ideally like as site creators, I think the reality is that small-scale, targeted-ad funding for web sites, where we create something like a personal blog or a site with some articles and then slap something like Google Ads on them to cover the hosting costs, isn't going to be a sustainable model.
Instead, I think sites like that are either going to be done for love (as they always used to be), or done for profit (and run as a business, including marketing and advertising arrangements or some other revenue stream), or perhaps hosted on some sort of aggregator site that does have critical mass to run a cost-effective ad program even if its individual contributors wouldn't (which might be a business, or might simply be a bunch of like-minded individuals clubbing together to split their hosting costs).
There might even be some sort of positive cultural shift over time, where people stop wanting everything for free and start to realise that you get what you pay for and good sites are worth supporting. I don't expect that many people are going to actively donate to sites any time soon, but then you only need a few who do to pay an annual hosting bill for a low traffic personal site.
So while I do see your point and understand your concern, I don't think we're talking about the fall of the Internet here. Little guys like you and me will keep our sites running one way or another and still spend our time on content we think is worthwhile.
simply running ads themselves, targeted at their own viewers' likely interests, without relying on third party middlemen
One minor point here - speaking as both an advertising guy and someone who runs content-based websites, this is much harder than it may appear. I qualify as at least a professional if not an expert in making money off website space, and I still frequently find it difficult to beat (intelligently set up) Google Adsense for raw CPM.
For someone with no experience or interest in making money directly off advertising space, it'll be much harder, and I'd expect most people trying this to take a pretty significant revenue loss in the short term. That may reverse itself in the long term - there are big advantages to running your own ads if you're prepared to put the time in - but the initial income slump will be painful.
I still frequently find it difficult to beat (intelligently set up) Google Adsense for raw CPM.
Fair enough, but I think the big question is absolute rather than relative: do you still make enough handling ads directly to be financially viable?
For someone with no experience or interest in making money directly off advertising space, it'll be much harder, and I'd expect most people trying this to take a pretty significant revenue loss in the short term.
I'm genuinely curious about how many sites these days are small enough that they're basically amateur operations, yet make significant revenues from the ad networks (which is obviously a prerequisite for making significant revenue losses if they have to move to another funding model).
I just don't see it. Ad revenues have been falling like a stone since forever, so these days low-traffic personal sites are lucky to even cover their hosting costs, never mind making any real money. Aren't most sites with enough traffic to make serious money via the ad networks effectively professional sites being run as businesses already?
That may reverse itself in the long term - there are big advantages to running your own ads if you're prepared to put the time in - but the initial income slump will be painful.
I think that's the key thing, really. This is a long game, and fear of change because it will be awkward for some people in the short term generally leads to stagnation and never discovering ways of doing things that might be better for (almost) everyone after even a brief period of adjustment.
I can make enough money to cover costs selling ads direct - however, I know a lot about making money with advertising.
effectively professional sites being run as businesses already
The key issue here is that "professional" != "expert affiliate marketer" or "direct ad salesman". It's possible to be a very professional journalist who's extremely good at writing compelling content and sharing it online, and have not a goddamn clue about how to run a successful ad campaign, or how to sell advertising space to multinationals. This is very non-obvious stuff that takes a lot of time, energy and money to learn, and most people running websites - professional or amateur - do not know.
It's possible to be a very professional journalist who's extremely good at writing compelling content and sharing it online, and have not a goddamn clue about how to run a successful ad campaign, or how to sell advertising space to multinationals.
I don't doubt it, I just question how many of those people are doing that. How many top notch professional journalists are really trying to make money from their writing by running their own independent site funded by the likes of Google Ads? I'm a pretty avid surfer and have quite a diverse range of hobbies and professional interests, and I honestly can't think of a single site I've visited any time recently, in either a personal or professional capacity, that would fall into that category. Obviously I might be an outlier, but it does seem unlikely in this case.
I think you may be being sidetracked by the word "journalist" here - I'm using it to refer to anyone with the skills to write good content, not just print/TV journalists.
Are you sure that on all of the surfing sites you've visited, there's at least one person who has the very specific and rare skills I've mentioned? I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.
And if they don't have those skills, and the ad networks go away or divide their revenues by three, to quote the meme, they're going to have a bad time.
I've only recently installed AdBlock as, although I know advertising revenue is important to some of the small sites I use, I've been a bit perturbed as to how creepy a lot of online advertising has become. I spend a few minutes thinking about buying something (e.g. an electric raclette coooker) and for weeks I am pestered on loads of different websites about them - which I find really annoying.
I like ads relevant to the site I'm visiting. I don't like ads that try to connect to something I was doing previously. Those break my concentration, and seem somewhat trollish. E.g. I'm trying to book tickets for a trip, then I need to switch to researching something else and am blocking out the trip from my mind for a bit. It's not helpful to have your own little troll Clippy following you around the internet asking around every corner, "I notice you're trying to get work done, but what about that trip you haven't booked yet?", even when you're visiting sites completely unrelated to travel. Yeah, I know about that trip, I'm just not working on it right now, because I have other things to do, and I don't need to be reminded about it on every goddamn page I visit.
It seems like the explicit purpose of those retargeting ads is to distract me from what I'm currently trying to concentrate on, by reminding me of something I was doing previously. That's not something I want, and in fact I find it quite intrusive.
The one thing that irritates me most about them is they aren't smart enough to STOP.
Say I google "laser pen". Suddenly, I get ads about lasers! Cool!
Then I buy one of these laser pens. The ads have done their job. Lucky them.
But now that I've bought a laser pen, I no longer need to be shown ads for them - I won't buy another one, so for God's sake, stop showing me ads for them! Learn to know when an ad has served its purpose and move on.
I did a search for "injury lawyer" a while ago, I swear it was six months before I stopped seeing ambulance-chaser adverts on every damn website I visited...
Can't stand 'em, find the whole thing creepy as hell.
I find out about new (tech) things by reading tech sites, which probably means I'm a sucker for advertorial, but at least I'm going out looking for info rather than having it shoved into my face.
"The facts are that [Firefox users] will get more ads, not less, and those ads will not be tailored to their interests," he said. "They'll see untargeted ads, which will look like spam.""
If this is truly the case then Firefox users will notice and either turn the third party cookies back on or complain/switch to chrome. If the effect is that big, and people want to see the targeted ads, what do the ad networks stand to lose?
Firefox is making a right move, there is now a distinctive conscious choice you can make: Firefox, privacy by default. Chrome and IE can never counter that (because of their affiliations with ad networks). Maybe its not the biggest reason to use a browser, but it's a big one and it enforces Firefox's position in the market.
Chrome has an option to enable the Do-Not-Track request and to block all 3rd party cookies already. In the settings dialog that is, not in the chrome:// tweaks.
It's less about the actual ad networks. It's more that the sites who display ads that are better targeted and have a higher click through rate can charge more money for them and run fewer of those specific ads as a consequence. Businesses that are able to better target ads at people who might actually be in the market based on recent browsing behavior can spend their advertising money on reaching a higher quality audience. The alternative is that you get a spray of all kinds of ads that have no relevance.
I've said it before but in my opinion retargetting is a win-win-win situation for advertisers, publishers and visitors. Being retargetted has improved my online experience a lot since I only get ads I actually care about.
There's an old saying that goes "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining." that seems applicable here. The ad industry is crying foul that a browser comes with it's own umbrella against their torrent of waste.
"The facts are that [Firefox users] will get more ads, not less, and those ads will not be tailored to their interests" he said. "They'll see untargeted ads..."
Better sense would have prevailed if you'd asked the choice been given to Firefox users to allow third party cookies if they wanted it.But no, you'd rather lash out on Mozilla. Good job - the two of you ad presidents! :)
When I listen to advertisers talk I realise that I understand the individual words, but all strung together they mean something different, and reality starts to slide away until I'm through the looking glass in a weird world where "We want to show you our ads" is the same as "Why don't you want to see our brilliant content? People love those shouting smileys and buzzing mosquitoes!"
Me saying "Really, I only leave ads on to give a smidgen of money to the content provider; I'd much rather make micro-payments direct" is interpreted as me being an obscure hard-line communist.
I genuinely feel lost when listening to advertisers
111 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadIf that is the case, then people will eventually stop using Firefox and sites will continue to put annoying popups that confusingly say 'We use cookies, do you agree?"
However I doubt that is what users would prefer. I think they would prefer less privacy invading advertisements and more contextually relevant ones.
While I like the idea of restricting third party cookies, I can understand the advertising businesses argument. They need to know what you want, so you can click on the ad, thereby providing a small amount of revenue to both website and advertiser.
I'm not sure why Mozilla would care about any business arrangement between some websites and advertisers.
Go die in a thousand fucking fires, people working in advertising/marketing[0].
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
(edit: Jeez, hyperbole detectors seem to have a calibration problem today.)
And no, you cannot divorce responsibilities like that. That’s just dumb. How can you even?! How is that argumentation even possible?!
You can’t have it both ways.
You do know that Google is firmly part of that advertising industry? That’s how they make their money.
Did you even read the article? The IAB is complaining about Mozilla. You know who’s a member of the IAB? Fucking Google!
See here: http://www.iab.net/member_center/1521/1534
To explain it absolutely sober: There are people who actually work in advertising and marketing. Their job, more often than not, is selling something to people that they don't need. That's the kind of people I'm attacking and that should be easy to see from the video I linked.
Google has an advertising division, but largely, they supply services to advertisers. They are as responsible for advertisements they run as TV Channels are for the ads they run during commercial breaks.
Now, taking that claim further and saying we should also include farmers is hyperbole to highlight the fact that your argument is a red herring. But again - I thought we were just having a laugh here.
Who do you think wants targeting to work? Advertisers buy targeting services – but the ones selling them are companies like Google. That’s what they do.
To want to separate that is completely crazy.
You know, why are we even having this discussion? You know who complained about Mozilla here? Why, yes, it’s the IAB and one of their members is – you guessed it – Google. This is one of the lobby organizations Google is part of.
See: http://www.iab.net/member_center/1521/1534
Why?
That's a big assumption. Someone also has to sell the things that people do need, or more generally the things that people would genuinely value and have an interest in buying if they knew about them. Advertising done responsibly serves a useful purpose for all concerned. The problem is that a lot of on-line advertising is not done responsibly, and that's why people find it intrusive and annoying and creepy and all those other negative connotations.
Also, marketing and advertising are not the same thing.
I thought it was enough to qualify it with "more often than not".
> Someone also has to sell the things that people do need
I think I can justly say that I purchase far more things that weren't advertised to me than those that were. The 'someone' in this equation is, imho, the people who actually produce stuff.
> Advertising done responsibly serves a useful purpose for all concerned.
Absolutely agree. My point isn't that it's impossible, just that it is rare. So rare, that I think the fury against the people who don't handle it responsibly is justified.
> Also, marketing and advertising are not the same thing.
Borrowed that generalization from Mr. Hicks.
Disagrement - okay - but calling for people to be killed - not okay, especially not over over something as utterly inconsequential as ads on a damn website. Remember that you just committed a very serious criminal offense with your post. I'm not sure how this reflects on the compony you work for as per your profile.
Oh and your remark on my company is funny. I leave it to everybody with more than a 1 second attention span to figure out why. Feel free to talk to HR.
Utterly tasteless? Sure. Illegal? Nah.
NB: Since you're Dutch, this site is relevant and shocking: http://www.doodsbedreiging.nl/
Untargeted ads would be a bit less... boring...
This kind of privacy improvements actually make me want to donate to Mozilla to continue their efforts.
I don't think the option is there on their mobile browsers either - it didn't exist on Android when I last looked, and definitely wasn't there on iOS either.
That’s not the issue here. This is about defaults. No one cares about some obscure preference. It’s irrelevant.
Indeed, and like the article points out, the ANA and IBA just haven't been paying attention. From the article: “By default, Safari blocks third-party cookies, and has since its 2003 debut. The iOS version of Safari has done the same since its 2007 inception.”
By my calculations, there are a lot more devices running Safari than there are running Firefox:
There are 1.25 billion desktops and notebooks in use. According to NetApps Market Share, 17.3% of those use Firefox (216 million), 5.42% use Safari (68 million). There are 400 million iOS devices, all of those have Safari. So Safari is installed on twice as many computing devices than Firefox is. Now, total time spent browsing on desktops vs mobile is not equal, but it's getting there, especially as tablets become dominant.
This conclusion is reached by the author of the article, as well: “In the last 12 months, mobile's share of all browser usage has almost doubled, climbing from 7.2% to 13.2%. At that pace, mobile browsing will account for 20% of the total by the end of April 2014.”
How exactly will blocking 3rd party cookies stop us protecting our privacy?
I could understand if they said something like "it will stop targeted ads", but that is just clearly bullshit
I'm still really not sure why my requesting information from a web server should leak any information about me beyond an IP address.
"we will lose the opportunity to monitor and protect our privacy" Really now!!! So my privacy is best served by sharing all my data? This is so Orwellian. Noam Chomsky should have something to say on this :)
> Without third-party cookies, they will not be able to participate in the existing industry system for privacy protection.
Their privacy is still protected, but they can't participate in the privacy protection system! Oh noes!
> They will see an increase in the irrelevant spam advertising served to them
So you're telling me that when you serve ads for "RightWingNews.com, LiberalOasis.com, MotherhoodWTF.com, and SuburbanDaddy.com [and] thousands of small businesses" there's no possible way to find relevant ads without tracking the user?
They will find a way to make it really hard to block that stuff based on generic rules or by blocking the servers that serve the ads.
I could say that I actually do whitelist sites to display ads, but we both know that I'm in the minority there, and beside the point.
Then me running AdBlock is not an issue, as the ads will be displayed as part of that requirement. There are numerous sites that do this already.
However, if the site chooses to render the site regardless of the capabilities of my browser, I can assume it's acceptable. Just as radio stations allow me the ability to change stations when commercials come on, or I can mute the TV and not watch the ads, requiring me to consume the advertising is silly.
And yes, I know what you are saying. Blah blah blah, it's what they intend the price to be and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, if I request something from you, and you give it to me, you can't be upset if I choose to read only part of it.
Hell, I counter it's more immoral to put demands on me before I agree to it. You say it's the price of the content? Well, my counter-offer is AdBlock. Sites are free to disagree with this counter-offer. Unless bargaining is off the table.
Should I be ashamed of myself for occasionally using lynx too?
> if everyone did this half the sites you ad-block wouldn't exist.
I'm not worried about that. I pay when given the opportunity for content on the web that I regularly enjoy.
> You're not participating in a fair transaction.
You seem to think that it's unfair that some people are able to negotiate a lower price than others.
You can rationalize it all you want but if everyone did what you propose we do, everything would be far more expensive.
The content providers.
The advertisers.
Me.
I'm ad tolerant; I don't run ad-blockers. This means I get to see all ads. And some of them a really awful. I feel sorry for content creators having to have those on their sites. A 30 minute YouTube video with a 5 minute advert? Those yelling smileys or buzzing mosquitoes? (I politely emails the site owner; I nearly installed ad-block) The really slow loading page-covering ad delaying access to the actual content?
I fully understand why people block ads.
I don't understand why advertisers ever thought that "Annoy the hell out of anyone seeing this advert" was the best way to go.
You're doing the right thing by not installing adblock, but really you should vote with your feet, by just not visiting those sites. As soon as you see ads that annoy you - go away. That's the right thing to do, because then you're not consuming the content. You're always free to consume content or not, but if you do, you should adhere to the rules that the owner of that content set - namely that you also view this ad.
That's a fair point, to some extent.
It's no different than pirating stuff
Off the top of my head...
Piracy is illegal, while not watching ads isn't.
In general, when something is sold for a price it's normal to pay so you can buy it, while when ads are displayed in other media there's no expectation that people must stop and look at them and the advertiser knew that up-front.
Consuming pirated content is a security risk if you do the "wrong" thing, while displaying on-line ads is a security risk if you do the "right" thing.
People can and do detect my use of adblock and either ask me to disable it for their site, subscribe to their service, or decide not to serve me the data.
I have every write to request data from you while also instructing my browser not to request ads. You have every right to decide not to serve me any data. Until or unless I actually infringe your copyright, or enter into an agreement to see your ads and then renege, this is not equivalent to piracy.
Speaking as someone who buys a fair bit of advertising, there are thousands of sites in the inventory of most RTB sellers which I'll just skip over unless their inventory is really cheap, because it's very hard to figure out a single product that most of the site's readership would use.
(Example site - Photobucket. What ads would obviously make money on there?)
Also, for quite a few sites where the core demographic does have some obvious interests, there aren't that many well-paying advertisers for that demo. Retargeting and similar tracking-based advertising systems help fill in the gaps when the core advertisers aren't buying all the inventory.
> "They'll see untargeted ads, which will look like spam. We have to get this information to them somehow."
Oh really, you have to get this information to me? Seriously? I didn't ask for it, I have no desire for it, no you don't have to. You want to, because someone is paying you to do so. Yet another case of someone thinking they have a right to a business model. No you don't. If it fails it fails. Find something to sell that people want (or at least don't despise enough to actively put you out of business).
The gist of this new behavior is a change from Allow All Cookies to Allow Cookies Only From Visited Domains. This is unlike Block All Third-Party Cookies option that existed in both Firefox and Chrome in the way that third party cookie is still accepted but only if user ever visited that "third-party" website before.
The behavior may be less strict than Block All Third-Party Cookies option and probably won't make much difference for Facebook or Google's tracking cookies (if you use them). But being the new default option means smaller players going to take a direct hit. Which is good.
The fact is though, and I'm surprised to find that I must be the only HN regular who finds himself working in the world of marketing and advertising, that a hell of a lot of the internet and people working on making it better, not just worse, is paid for by advertising money.
The vitriol that's on display from everybody on this thread is, in a big way, as myopic and ignorant and full of self-righteousness as the guy they're calling names (who I agree is all of the above, yes).
Linux is barely 20 years old, the Internet has been around for decades before that. In recent years, it seems like more and more people are using ‘Linux’ in a context where they actually mean ‘Unix’. Just like the Internet and the web are not the same, these distinctions matter.
“ I must be the only HN regular who finds himself working in the world of marketing and advertising”
Nope, there are plenty of us here.
Ads are very important to the web as it exists, but to claim anything foundational is just ignorant. Formative could be argued, though.
Carry on, Mozilla!
Or small businesses will have to bring their revenue in by other means, such as charging real money for valuable content and services, or simply running ads themselves, targeted at their own viewers' likely interests, without relying on third party middlemen. Either of those outcomes sucks for the middlemen, but not so much for anyone else.
Fortunately for the advertisers and the user-as-product platform services, micropayments are mostly still wishful thinking, so they're not likely to see this happen on a wide scale in the immediate future. But if they think small -- or even large -- businesses on the web can only survive by using their ad networks, sooner or later they're going to get a rude awakening about the sustainability of their business model.
I imagine there will be some last gasp effort to legislate that people can't view sites without viewing the ads, shortly before the ad networks finally retreat into obscurity, but that's so user-hostile that I don't see it gaining much traction.
In the meantime, the first team who manage to gain traction with a social network that is totally user-focused and charges a small annual fee for basic features and a few more small fees for top-ups is probably going to be very rich. And for the smaller sites, anyone with enough traffic visiting say a blog to make real money via the ad networks is probably also in a position to negotiate a direct ad deal and cut out the middleman for better returns.
It actually also sucks for the businesses themselves, at least in my case. I'd much rather spend my time creating valuable content for everyone than creating valuable content for a few who pay me.
Of course there are alternatives I can try, I can keep content free and solicit donations, I can create various merchandise or I can directly sell advertising space hosted on my own site. All these options essentially take time away from creating content in the first place. My fear is that I'll be too busy trying to make money to make good content. Ad networks at least have the benefit of a "fire and forget" and having someone manage that whole aspect of my business, leaving me to work on content.
I totally get the whole point of no tracking, I'm not even really against it. I'm just trying to point out that it's not just the big business ad networks that will be affected here.
Whatever we might ideally like as site creators, I think the reality is that small-scale, targeted-ad funding for web sites, where we create something like a personal blog or a site with some articles and then slap something like Google Ads on them to cover the hosting costs, isn't going to be a sustainable model.
Instead, I think sites like that are either going to be done for love (as they always used to be), or done for profit (and run as a business, including marketing and advertising arrangements or some other revenue stream), or perhaps hosted on some sort of aggregator site that does have critical mass to run a cost-effective ad program even if its individual contributors wouldn't (which might be a business, or might simply be a bunch of like-minded individuals clubbing together to split their hosting costs).
There might even be some sort of positive cultural shift over time, where people stop wanting everything for free and start to realise that you get what you pay for and good sites are worth supporting. I don't expect that many people are going to actively donate to sites any time soon, but then you only need a few who do to pay an annual hosting bill for a low traffic personal site.
So while I do see your point and understand your concern, I don't think we're talking about the fall of the Internet here. Little guys like you and me will keep our sites running one way or another and still spend our time on content we think is worthwhile.
One minor point here - speaking as both an advertising guy and someone who runs content-based websites, this is much harder than it may appear. I qualify as at least a professional if not an expert in making money off website space, and I still frequently find it difficult to beat (intelligently set up) Google Adsense for raw CPM.
For someone with no experience or interest in making money directly off advertising space, it'll be much harder, and I'd expect most people trying this to take a pretty significant revenue loss in the short term. That may reverse itself in the long term - there are big advantages to running your own ads if you're prepared to put the time in - but the initial income slump will be painful.
Fair enough, but I think the big question is absolute rather than relative: do you still make enough handling ads directly to be financially viable?
For someone with no experience or interest in making money directly off advertising space, it'll be much harder, and I'd expect most people trying this to take a pretty significant revenue loss in the short term.
I'm genuinely curious about how many sites these days are small enough that they're basically amateur operations, yet make significant revenues from the ad networks (which is obviously a prerequisite for making significant revenue losses if they have to move to another funding model).
I just don't see it. Ad revenues have been falling like a stone since forever, so these days low-traffic personal sites are lucky to even cover their hosting costs, never mind making any real money. Aren't most sites with enough traffic to make serious money via the ad networks effectively professional sites being run as businesses already?
That may reverse itself in the long term - there are big advantages to running your own ads if you're prepared to put the time in - but the initial income slump will be painful.
I think that's the key thing, really. This is a long game, and fear of change because it will be awkward for some people in the short term generally leads to stagnation and never discovering ways of doing things that might be better for (almost) everyone after even a brief period of adjustment.
effectively professional sites being run as businesses already
The key issue here is that "professional" != "expert affiliate marketer" or "direct ad salesman". It's possible to be a very professional journalist who's extremely good at writing compelling content and sharing it online, and have not a goddamn clue about how to run a successful ad campaign, or how to sell advertising space to multinationals. This is very non-obvious stuff that takes a lot of time, energy and money to learn, and most people running websites - professional or amateur - do not know.
I don't doubt it, I just question how many of those people are doing that. How many top notch professional journalists are really trying to make money from their writing by running their own independent site funded by the likes of Google Ads? I'm a pretty avid surfer and have quite a diverse range of hobbies and professional interests, and I honestly can't think of a single site I've visited any time recently, in either a personal or professional capacity, that would fall into that category. Obviously I might be an outlier, but it does seem unlikely in this case.
Are you sure that on all of the surfing sites you've visited, there's at least one person who has the very specific and rare skills I've mentioned? I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.
And if they don't have those skills, and the ad networks go away or divide their revenues by three, to quote the meme, they're going to have a bad time.
It seems like the explicit purpose of those retargeting ads is to distract me from what I'm currently trying to concentrate on, by reminding me of something I was doing previously. That's not something I want, and in fact I find it quite intrusive.
Say I google "laser pen". Suddenly, I get ads about lasers! Cool!
Then I buy one of these laser pens. The ads have done their job. Lucky them.
But now that I've bought a laser pen, I no longer need to be shown ads for them - I won't buy another one, so for God's sake, stop showing me ads for them! Learn to know when an ad has served its purpose and move on.
I did a search for "injury lawyer" a while ago, I swear it was six months before I stopped seeing ambulance-chaser adverts on every damn website I visited...
I find out about new (tech) things by reading tech sites, which probably means I'm a sucker for advertorial, but at least I'm going out looking for info rather than having it shoved into my face.
If this is truly the case then Firefox users will notice and either turn the third party cookies back on or complain/switch to chrome. If the effect is that big, and people want to see the targeted ads, what do the ad networks stand to lose?
Firefox is making a right move, there is now a distinctive conscious choice you can make: Firefox, privacy by default. Chrome and IE can never counter that (because of their affiliations with ad networks). Maybe its not the biggest reason to use a browser, but it's a big one and it enforces Firefox's position in the market.
It's less about the actual ad networks. It's more that the sites who display ads that are better targeted and have a higher click through rate can charge more money for them and run fewer of those specific ads as a consequence. Businesses that are able to better target ads at people who might actually be in the market based on recent browsing behavior can spend their advertising money on reaching a higher quality audience. The alternative is that you get a spray of all kinds of ads that have no relevance.
and setting the network.cookie.cookieBehavior value to 1 (0 is the default)
You can also try setting network.cookie.thirdparty.sessionOnly to 1 to allow third party cookies during the session, but then delete them afterwards
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Cookies_Preferences_in...
[0] http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.http.sendRefererHeader
OH THE HORROR!
I laughed so hard at this one.
Great move by the Firefox team. It made me donate for their cause.
Better sense would have prevailed if you'd asked the choice been given to Firefox users to allow third party cookies if they wanted it.But no, you'd rather lash out on Mozilla. Good job - the two of you ad presidents! :)
Me saying "Really, I only leave ads on to give a smidgen of money to the content provider; I'd much rather make micro-payments direct" is interpreted as me being an obscure hard-line communist.
I genuinely feel lost when listening to advertisers