Not really. It actually increases the pool of money available to content creators.
Everybody wins.
> It boggles my mind that publishers still favor this model over display ads (targeted to articles, not readers).
Because they generate more revenue, I'd guess. Mind-boggling, I know.
Well, except for the people being targeted, and the ones being served malware, and the ones having their cross-Internet activities being tracked, logged, and analyzed. It's not such a win for them.
They win too. They get content without having to hand over cash.
Everybody wins because the value of what they are giving is, for them, less than they are receiving. And the value of what they are giving, for others, is more than what others are giving.
Going back to non-targeted ads would significantly reduce monetization, reducing the pile of money available to content creators, and driving many (if not most) of them out of business.
You can always not access any ad-funded content or service, the option is yours. Take it.
MySpace used to have animated DoubleClick style untargeted ads. It sucked. Facebook crushed them partly because it's a much cleaner experience and Facebook ads are so much higher quality.
The problem with all the people claiming this sort of move is great is it doesn't ring true, they sound almost in physical pain over "tracking" (a scary word for very primitive and broad-brush techniques, by and large).
But where are the people who have actually suffered concrete, quantifiable harm? Some real, unarguable case where someone suffered because of ad targeting? If there were a real harm here, given the enormous scale of the internet, there should be millions of such stories but the only one I can think of was years ago, about a supermarket that discovered that women who buy X, Y and Z things together are very likely to be pregnant. They caused a minor family drama by sending a teenager adverts for baby stuff when her parents didn't know. Arguably this is a hole the teenager dug for themselves, but even so, it wasn't even internet based stuff from what I recall.
And as far as harm goes, that's about it. I've never been harmed by ads. I've never met anyone else who has been either.
But I remember a LOT of people complaining back in the bad old days about the barrel-scraping punch the monkey inventory that typified the web experience.
http://gawker.com/5671582/how-facebooks-targeted-ads-reveale...
I only skimmed parts of the paper but I also question the premise. It seems the attack is entirely dependent on you being 100% sure your ad is so carefully targeted it'll only show to a single person. If there's any doubt at all that it might match even two people, the attack doesn't work. Seems rather hard to pull off in anything other than lab conditions.
Then just don't access any ad-sponsored content. You are the one deciding to use it, just make that call.
I hate ads like anyone else, but I know that ads pay for the services and content I access. As much as I'd love for them to go away, I don't want it because I know the impact it would have on the availability of content and services.
I’m trying hard not to. My wallet is always open when there’s an option to not have my privacy violated.
The issue? Most services don’t allow me to pay, and the ones that do still try to track me after I’ve paid.
The result? My adblocker is happily giving them the middle finger and I can’t wait for adtech to die in a fire.
You do realize that with adtech dying those sites and services will go out of business, right? Or you didn't think that through?
Your comment makes it seem like these businesses are invented recently.
I'm tired of these excuses of business dying.The online ad tech industry brought it themselves.
Also I care more about people than a corporation that exploits people; which is opposite of American culture.
When will this happen? Does it happen before or after Hollywood stops making films because piracy, and the entire recording industry falls over and bursts into a fire?
There are other cases where no such inference is possible, for example, if the person writing things down is a tax inspector investigating benefits fraud. In that case objections on privacy grounds would be ignored.
> creating and distributing low-quality clickbait content profitable, pushing more serious content aside.
Sure, you can make that argument, but why should anyone decide what kind of content is worthwhile?
Are you suggesting a "internet content quality board"?
Let users decide what content is worthwhile, voting with their clicks, eyes and wallets.
I don't see any need for any quality control.
You're saying that you don't like the content, so you'd be ok with it going away.
What about people who like it and use the services?
Nobody is forcing you to consume ad-sponsored content.
Apple appear to be giving us, the users, some ways to claim our privacy back. I really don't see a problem here. Want content that relies on tracking for revenue? Use software that supports the tracking. Don't want it? Use software that doesn't support it.
Then don't use those services. The choice is yours. Let other users assess the value for themselves.
This also doesn’t work given the masses have zero idea of the tracking that is happening and blindly trust Zuck’s lies on how Facebook respects their privacy. If people knew the extent of the tracking you’d see a lot more backlash.
And since when should you have a "choice of products"?
Companies offer products, if you like them, use them.
I don't have a choice of free cars.
You may not have the choice or free cars, but you have a choice of plenty of paid cars, including ones that don’t stalk you everywhere you go.
I don’t have a choice between a free Facebook and a paid Facebook that doesn’t stalk me. I have to either take the free Facebook and be stalked.... or not take the free Facebook and still get stalked by their like buttons everywhere.
Remember, you're the one accessing. The choice is yours.
> They win too. They get content without having to hand over cash.
Nonsense. I'm targeted and the content I get for free is markedly better than the clickbait listicle crap is offering where the vast majority of tracking shit is coming from.
The ONLY place I've noticed the "ads for content" story even remotely work (in the 20 years I've been on line) is some YouTube channels. And they broker their OWN ads. The shit monetised by YouTube itself is still the same 99% clickbait poop.
There's a few exceptions that get monetised and make quality, but they are sooooooo not worth putting up with this shit, nobody ever asked me if perhaps I would like them to take their content AND their ads. Because what is left over WILL contain 99% less loud screaming attention whores.
Nobody is a winner when the people making beautiful things for free are being duped by ad network vultures.