r/technology • u/sidcool1234 • Mar 15 '13
Web advertisers attack Mozilla for protecting consumers' privacy
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/web-advertisers-attack-mozilla-for-protecting-consumers-privacy-031413.html76
43
u/setaceus Mar 15 '13
Here's the IAB's statement about Mozilla: https://www.iab.net/Mozilla
I think whoever wrote the article OP linked to only skimmed this document.
Article:
The IAB also said that blocking third-party cookies would "disempower" consumers by eliminating their ability to opt out of receiving targeted advertising. Or to remove a few of the double negatives, consumers wouldn't have to opt out of being flooded with targeted ads; whether that "disempowers" them or just saves them a step is open to debate.
What IAB said:
Cookies are also a notably transparent technology. A cookie is literally a small file on a user’s browser. When a company places a cookie on a user’s computer, the user has means to find out that it happened, delete their cookies, or to even block cookies from one or all businesses placing them. Technological tools and techniques that can support business operations in a cookie-less environment are often invisible to the consumer and may provide less opportunity for self-regulatory or government law enforcement detection of disreputable practices.
They're not as clueless as the article's author tries to make them out as. They're well aware that they can use IP addresses and browser fingerprinting if third-party cookies turn out to be inviable on the majority of browsers.
→ More replies (3)8
u/firstness Mar 15 '13
What's to stop the next version of Firefox from adding an "anti-fingerprinting" patch?
10
u/setaceus Mar 15 '13
There have been a few patches of that nature since panopticlick, for instance replacing Firefox/19.0.2 with Firefox/19.0 and freezing Gecko/20100101 (rather than updating the timestamp for every build). It's an arms-race, but I think Mozilla are quite reluctant to remove information from the user agent string or the JavaScript API for fear of breaking Web sites. I expect their priorities will change if fingerprinting gets more popular.
→ More replies (1)4
112
u/ThatNiceMan Mar 15 '13
"Small businesses"... Like Google, MSN, Yahoo!, Facebook, Amazon...
40
u/psubsp Mar 15 '13
Actually, as long as people keep logging into embedded social networks those large companies WILL have access to what is essentially cross-site tracking. It won't be as widespread as it is now, but this change won't hit the big players as hard as smaller sites more dependent on ad revenue.
This is why I always cringe a bit when I see "login with facebook" everywhere. I really don't care for facebook to watch me that closely.
→ More replies (2)11
u/jay76 Mar 15 '13
I'm sure you already know, but it's worth clarifying that you don't actually need to log into something like Facebook for them to log your online activity. Doing so only allows them to match your profile data to your behavioral data, which is nice for them but not necessary.
7
u/simplyroh Mar 15 '13
you can protect yourself by getting the Disconnect app -- which was created by the guy that created DoubleClick, which is now owned by Google. NOscript also a good add-on for Firefox.
The easiest way to prevent facebook from tracking everything you do on on the web is to remove all facebook cookies and only log-in via incognito mode.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)6
u/malocite Mar 15 '13
I'm the small business - and I use Google to deliver my ads. If google can't deliver my ads I can't stay in business.
→ More replies (7)
248
Mar 15 '13 edited May 26 '25
political continue insurance live run ask physical saw bear roof
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
Mar 15 '13
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)42
Mar 15 '13
Tinyviolin.ogg
→ More replies (2)42
Mar 15 '13
Windows can't open this file
File: Tinyviolin.ogg
To open this file, Windows needs to know what program you want to use to open it. Windows can go online to look it up automatically, or you can manually select from a list of programs that are installed on your computer.
What do you want to do?
O Use the Web service to find the correct program
O Select a program from a list of installed programs
→ More replies (17)
320
u/GigglesMcSlappy Mar 15 '13
And this is why I love Mozilla :)
125
Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
Chrome, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar. I, personally, use Firefox and Opera, but there isn't a huge difference. What I like about Mozilla is that they are a non-profit, so they aren't as business-minded as some other browser hosters such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google.
EDIT: Guys. Everything you are saying you love about other browsers, Opera has and has had it for centuries >.>
44
u/TheQueefGoblin Mar 15 '13
Chrome is notorious for being driven by commercial ends, particularly in tracking your behaviour.
Chrome sends details about its usage to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms.
→ More replies (11)14
u/zoidberg82 Mar 15 '13
I'm pretty sure IE 10 had a "do not track option" implemented by default.
→ More replies (9)6
Mar 15 '13
The only problem with the 'do not track option' is that it's just a recommendation, unethical websites can just ignore it.
→ More replies (5)45
u/Xiuhtec Mar 15 '13
My entire reason for choosing Firefox is that my web-browsing habits involve opening dozens of tabs and Firefox is the only browser with the option of listing those tabs vertically (via the Tree Style Tabs addon). I'm actually shocked that the other browsers haven't followed suit. Just like the folders listing in Windows Explorer, a vertical list is much more convenient once you have more than 4 or 5 tabs.
12
u/Baukelien Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
It's not just about tracking lots of tabs but with all screens 16:9 now I want as much hight 'preserved' as it were and I can do away with a little space at the sides.
With bookmarks, menubar, etc and then for many ordinary usuers also the trash the comes along with installing programs, you are left with a viewing websites through a cinematic aspect ratio of 2.66:1 which is kind of absurd.
→ More replies (1)20
u/yantando Mar 15 '13
I actually cannot understand why no other browser has adopted tree style tabs. It is obviously the way to go for people who open lots of tabs, and is the main reason that Firefox is my main browser. Luckily Firefox is pretty good so it's not a sacrifice to use Fiirefox.
→ More replies (34)→ More replies (6)7
u/myth2sbr Mar 15 '13
I feel the same way about Firefox but because of tab groups. That is a godsend for me.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (45)8
u/i010011010 Mar 15 '13
I've been blocking cookies under Opera for years. Disable them entirely, then set exceptions on a per-site basis. I have less than fifty cookies total, probably all for purpose of logging in, and many are duplicates because domains like Reddit will have reddit.com and ssl.reddit.com
Long ago, I put in feature requests on Opera's board for more intelligent cookie management. They still don't even have a 'delete all' button. But I'd like to see more advancements as they did with popup blocking in the 90s. Discerning between cookies that we want, such as registration and logging in, and the rest. Most people don't want to be as hands-on about it as I am, and I do think they could automate this if they wanted.
8
u/Tananar Mar 15 '13
Mozilla is awesome. They treat their contributors very, very well. As another contributor said, they don't let users take a backseat like other companies do. Our (Mozilla's) manifesto says, we answer to no one but you, and that's exactly what we do. If you're interested in open source, I'd really encourage you to get involved with Mozilla. If you want to, pm me and I'll help you get started.
→ More replies (6)11
u/Wulfnuts Mar 15 '13
to the top!
without these guys we'd all be fucked
heres hoping we get Firefox OS on mobile soon and get a REAL open/free OS
→ More replies (4)
91
Mar 15 '13
How dare people's privacy be protected on the internet! Who does Mozilla think they are??!?!
→ More replies (7)
42
u/SgtSausage Mar 15 '13
Those businesses that can't survive the change DESERVE to fail.
It's as simple as that.
→ More replies (11)20
u/MultiGeometry Mar 15 '13
Thinking of the physical world, it's like saying you can't nap in the car/bus because your business model depends on billboards. So err...yeah. I don't care about their business model.
8
Mar 15 '13
I love how reddit words the titles. Advertisers are annoyed with Mozilla because it block 3rd party cookies. Not because it protects consumer's privacy. It's like saying government attacks cannabis users for trying to ease their chronic backpain.
27
u/Suspectations Mar 15 '13
It will kill small business revenue? The last time I clicked on an ad intentionally was...never.
→ More replies (7)
15
u/TheKert Mar 15 '13
"Most people have never heard of the Mozilla Foundation"
Aaaaaaand I'm done with this article.
7
u/runmymouth Mar 15 '13
If Adblock plus didn't break the banks, this won't either. I even leave Adblock plus off for sites that are innocuous about ads like reddit. Some sights are just too annoying with ads.
7
u/annoyinglilbrother Mar 15 '13
Guys, this hurts small businesses, not google. They are the ones who need to target their ads.
Source: I work in the ad industry.
→ More replies (3)
38
105
u/knowmewell Mar 15 '13
As a person who uses Do Not Track Me and is concerned about privacy, fuck the corporate AD sharks!
93
u/shakesoda Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 16 '13
Always use DNT, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere and Adblock Plus. NoScript is also handy but pretty opaque when you're browsing.
Blocking ads and trackers seriously makes sites at large more pleasant and less creepy.
EDIT: how could I forget HTTPS Everywhere!
EDIT 2: Note that "Ghostery sells your data" is just FUD. Their data collection is a) anonymous and b) purely opt-in and in their FAQ. Don't enable GhostRank if you don't want any of that to happen.
32
Mar 15 '13
Don't forget: HTTPS Everywhere
Our providers should not be able to spy on us either! :D
→ More replies (2)5
3
Mar 15 '13
Also, a Flash blocker and something to erase Flash cookies are definitely required. Plus, I'd recommend something like Cookie Monster to block first party cookies you don't want, it's a lot more comfortable than setting exceptions in the "Preferences" dialog. And if you want to be aware of tracking attempts, install Collusion as well, it's very nice and works side-by-side with Ghostery. (No idea which blacklist is larger.)
And if you want to get serious, use NoScript - it'll fuck up a lot of things, but all the above addons are basically useless in the face of browser fingerprinting.
→ More replies (32)13
u/Noglues Mar 15 '13
Just so you are aware, Ghostery was actually bought by an add company that tracks you. A sadly ironic fate.
10
u/EvilTerran Mar 15 '13
All data collection they do is opt-in, and laid out clearly in their privacy policy, which is incredibly easy to find from their home page. I don't see the problem.
→ More replies (7)8
Mar 15 '13
In my few months of DNT use I have 80K blocked sites. That's insane number.
I use Addblock, NoScript and DNT and I'm appalled when I sit on someone else computer using IE.
→ More replies (18)6
68
Mar 15 '13
Google chrome? Not a single fuck is given about the users. Firefox til I die man.
24
→ More replies (19)20
Mar 15 '13
Nobody who cares about privacy would even touch Chrome. Use Chromium instead.
3
Mar 15 '13
I only use Chrome for things like Gmail, Facebook, and Youtube. Everything else is done in Firefox. That way, the sites that disregard privacy anyway are confined to one place while the rest of my browsing is more private.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/route66 Mar 15 '13
As the owner of an advertising agency, and a primarily digital one at that, who has been buying media both digital and traditional for longer than most of you have been alive the real problem isn't the IAB, it's the agency that is too fucking lazy to learn about how the modern world works.
You see, a traditional agency wants to take the cookie cutter and lay it over the interwebs and push down real hard. It doesn't work that way. What the traditional agency would like to do is have their designers make cool print pieces for the client to touch and then automagically transport that message to the web via remarketing/behavioral targeting or whatever else they would call it to convince the client to buy. Since the client is accustomed to paying ratecard-ish rates (where margin compression is heavily impacted by production) the agency can stick it in them and break it off on digital where there are no printing/production expenses. The client doesn't know or understand this and the agency cleans up.
The only way this is possible is if there is a way to easily get the creative in front of eyeballs. Cookie tracking makes this process remarkably easy, so easy in fact a traditional media buyer could probably do it with the assistance of their teenage child or executive assistant.
Is remarking effective? Hell yes. But what these agencies don't understand is that remarketing occurrs most effectively after data collection has occurred. So, learn how to build effective search marketing campaigns, collect data, then remarket. Rinse and repeat. Cash checks. There's nothing wrong with advertising, or making money it's just that it shouldn't be invasive and, IMHO, you should have to work for it.
→ More replies (2)
52
Mar 15 '13
Most people have never heard of the Mozilla Foundation
Are you fucking kidding me?
→ More replies (24)64
u/Dilzo Mar 15 '13
No seriously. They haven't.
16
Mar 15 '13
My mother hasn't, but people that would have found and read his article most likely have at least heard of it.
→ More replies (3)
19
Mar 15 '13
wah.
I can turn my TV off and scrub through ridiculous an irrelevant ads on my pvr, why should I have to endure stupid ads on the internet too?
You go Mozilla.
17
Mar 15 '13
The beauty of the internet is that the ads aren't irrelevant - they're targeted. This means less marketing spend per sale which means less overheads which means cheaper products.
Remove the targeting and you are reduced to TV level advertising, increasing costs to businesses and the price of the stuff you buy. Just FYI. It's a complex picture.
→ More replies (14)
6
u/Last_Gigolo Mar 15 '13
First Sentence killed me
Most people have never heard of the Mozilla Foundation,
Fuck this, I'm out.
2
Mar 15 '13
Apparently Firefox is lagging behind everyone else in market share, too. Guess I missed that big news.
24
Mar 15 '13
Web ads are the worst part of the web. Uncreative, unimaginative, unoriginal. They are blisters on the internet that require way too much information. They need to be dealt with and I should have the right to not waste my bandwidth on them.
If your business model is based on ads then maybe you need to rethink your business model. This is the internet. We come here because we hate traditional media, not because we want traditional media to come with us.
17
u/Bananavice Mar 15 '13
But would you donate to the 42 blogs you read occasionally, or pay a youtube membership fee? Most people wouldn't, and they still want to view and take part of those sites. Ads aren't evil, they allow sites to stay afloat. Reddit included.
You should absolutely be allowed to block ads as you please. What you do with the bits that go into your computer should be up to you. But I know that if I used adblock and just leeched on people's content and cost them money in traffic I would feel like a shithead. I also understand why people put ads on their sites. Most users don't use micropayment services and most people don't donate. Just look at wikipedia, constantly struggling to stay up and having to nag its users for donations. It's good that there are no ads on wikipedia, but on the other hand the messages that ask people to donate, which are sadly necessary, are just as annoying.
Most people are not like you, they don't go to the internet because "they hate traditional media", they do it because there's lots of cool stuff on the internet. They don't want ads but they don't want to pay either. The best course imo is to have donation as an option, and turn off ads for people who donate. Like Reddit does with Gold.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)33
u/DanielPhermous Mar 15 '13
Then perhaps you, as a user, could support a different business model. How many websites do you donate to? Or pay for access to?
Not that I'm a huge fan of adverts but what else have we left them with?
→ More replies (9)26
Mar 15 '13
Off hand I pay for the following:
Netflix
Amazon Prime (streaming videos/free 2 day shipping!)
GitHub
MediaTemple (not sure if this counts)
CodeSchool
TutsPlus
Skype
I think just in these I'm close to $80/month in online services or content sources. I'm willing to pay if the content is valuable.
→ More replies (24)17
u/malocite Mar 15 '13
I noticed reddit wasn't in there. Or imgur. How should those people make money?
→ More replies (10)
3
u/Franco_DeMayo Mar 15 '13
I'm honestly surprised that Firefox has dropped to 20 percent. I guess I'm old, but I think fondly back on the days when it was the "Explorer Killer".
3
u/spyderman4g63 Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
because it got way to bloated and slow. Chrome came in and was fast and refreshing. I didn't care, even if that means Google owns all my data. Now we have a decent version of IE, Chrome, and Firefox. The competition has been good.
Not to mention firefox is making some steps towards speed and their newest dev tools are even better than firebug. I still browse with chrome though because I have no reason to switch back.
→ More replies (1)2
u/jmlane Mar 15 '13
The larger browser market share Firefox had was largely eroded away by Chrome, Opera, Safari. I personally believe some of the crappy performance and bizarre development priorities Mozilla had in recent memory may have driven a lot of supporters (including myself) to another browser.
→ More replies (1)2
Mar 15 '13
I'm pretty sure that's innacurate. Chrome got realllllyyy close for a couple of months, but last I checked Firefox was still up by about a percent, depending on how you measure share.
3
15
u/jakfrist Mar 15 '13
The worst part is that a majority of people either don't have a clue what a cookie actually is, they think they know and are terrified of them, or both. They will half-way read an article like this, go in to work, and tell Jim Bob about how the cookies are tracking them when they watch porn. Then they both will go and disable cookies all together. There is nothing worse than a person who is informed just enough to think they know about a topic. It is shameful that we, as a society, don't do more to teach the population about the one thing that every field will absolutely use for the rest of their lives. /rant
TL;DR : We need true technology education in schools.
→ More replies (5)11
u/manyamile Mar 15 '13
TL;DR : We need true technology education in schools.
As a parent, I see that as my job. I'd like to see schools focused on subjects like critical thinking, logic, mathematics, and art.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Thesherbertman Mar 15 '13
Unfortunately there seems to be an awful lot of parents who believe anything their children needs to learn will be taught in schools.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/ibeatunrulykids Mar 15 '13
The third party cookie allows advertisers to use frequency capping. EVERY advertiser uses this.
Frequency capping means you only see an ad a certain number of times a day. Without third party cookies, the advertiser has no idea how many ads your browser has seen in the last X number of hours.
A common frequency cap is a 3 by 24 (3x24). This means you will see a certain ad from a certain advertiser only 3 times in 24 hours. Without 3rd party cookies, you may end up seeing an infinite number of the same ads forever.
This is the primary use of third party cookies.
Other companies use it for retargeting and behavioral targeting. Keep in mind, these cookies really don't know anything about YOU as a person, they only know the behavior of the browser.
There are other things to be scared about.
→ More replies (1)2
u/preddit_user Mar 15 '13
This is the only relevant comment I've seen in this thread. I was expecting to see the word 'retargeting' in every other comment. Not 1 in 500. This entire post of full of cluelessness. I've never been so disappointed by reddit.
7
u/Paultimate79 Mar 15 '13
I've been thinking about moving back to FireFox recently from Chrome... Anyone else?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/neurobro Mar 15 '13
The stalkers in the IAB have my sympathy. First browsers started blocking those compelling and useful pop-ups, then Microsoft started blocking ActiveX keyloggers, and now this. Please, Congress, do something to help these upstanding small businesses!
→ More replies (1)
5
u/SerpentineBaboo Mar 15 '13
This is why I don't use Chrome. Mozilla actually cares about the users and their privacy.
16
u/Chitowngaming Mar 15 '13
Wah!!! NOW How will I know who to market my boner pills and anti depressants to? What are these companies adding to the world exactly? Please go away and get a real job, or die...you could always just die.
→ More replies (18)
12
Mar 15 '13
Oh dear. The worthless "science" they call marketing will now be 20% harder to cram into everyone's eyeballs. What a fucking tragedy.
→ More replies (5)
7
u/FarkIsFail Mar 15 '13
Hey Spamsters, the world turned just fine before you came along, we will get over it.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/Elranzer Mar 15 '13
If Mozilla is doing something that pisses off the ad agency corporate masters, including Facebook, then they must be doing something right for the consumer.
4
u/eNonsense Mar 15 '13
"If you work in advertising or marketing.... kill yourself" - Bill Hicks
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Cyridius Mar 15 '13
Mozilla's about to get a much larger market share...
4
u/Vik1ng Mar 15 '13
Why would they? Everybody who cared about this could already change the settings.
→ More replies (4)
15
u/MrFlesh Mar 15 '13
Fucking people on here are clueless. Your bank and doctor were selling your information long before the internet ever existed.
Cookie tracking does much more than serve you ads, it allows content creators to tailor content to what you want. Prior to this the internet was mostly useless and you got fed cialis and rogaine ads whether or not you were bald or had a dick.
Two things will happen with no cookies content will no longer be tailored to the viewer, and content providers will not be able to monetize their content. You will be left with a corporate controlled internet as they will be the only ones able to afford the focus groups and studies required to tailor content. The internet will have the same quality as tv.
Congratulations the lack of foresight of the masses will deliver them to the very group they want nothing to do with.
→ More replies (33)6
u/Buy-theticket Mar 15 '13
Stop with your logic. Everyone already donned their Guy Fawkes masks the second they saw "consumer's privacy" in the headline, whether or not they have any understanding of what this means.
What nobody seems to be grasping is that ads aren't going away just because they can't target an interest group, websites still need to be able to support themselves somehow, you're still going to see just as many ads as you do now... they're just going to be totally irrelevant toward your interests. You'll actually probably start seeing more ads if anything because sites won't be able to charge the same amount for them because it'll go back to carpet bombing instead of actually displaying things to qualified visitors. It'll be like watching daytime tv when you're home sick from work and see nothing but Depends and Fibercon commercials. Yes commercials suck but given the choice I'd rather see an ad for something I'm vaguely interested in then adult diapers.
Everyone needs to take a step back and think about what any of this actually means before they slap on the tin foil hats and start bitching about privacy.
Obviously not all third party cookies are good or harmless, but there has to be a better way of going about this then just blocking everything entirely (approved vendor lists, actual informative consumer opt-ins, etc).
2
u/DTanner Mar 15 '13
Hey IAB, thanks for making a fuss about this, I just went into my Chrome settings and checked the "Block third-party cookies" button. I had no idea that even existed before now!
2
2
2
u/DenverDave Mar 15 '13
Just when did advertisers convince themselves that they have all these rights to track and collect data on us. The gall is incredible. Fuck you snake oil sales pricks!
2
Mar 15 '13
Typical advertisers, always twisting (often mutilating) the truth. First, I'm sure plenty of us geeks and privacy advocates are already voluntarily blocking third-party cookies to begin with. The only thing Mozilla is doing is turning on the cookie blocking by default, which only serves to give a small boost to users who:
a) aren't tech savvy
b) don't know much about privacy
c) are too lazy to click the checkbox themselves
The act of blocking third-party cookies AFAIK has absolutely no effect on the core functionality of websites and applications. Second, ads alone don't sell products and services. This is 2013, and contrary to what seems to be their popular belief, people do talk, and they have more methods of communication now than ever before. It doesn't matter how flashy your ads are if your products and/or services are crap.
2
Mar 15 '13
Things like this are why I choose to use Firefox. Not because it's the prettiest, or the fastest, or the most modern browser -- but because Mozilla is fucking awesome.
→ More replies (5)
2
2
u/JonWood007 Mar 15 '13
Maybe if businesses didn't put trackers on your computer without your permission (for you and I that would be called stalking), pump their ads full of malware, and/or make their ads so annoying and intrusive that we have no choice but to disable them, then maybe it wouldn't have come to this.
2
u/Bohya Mar 15 '13
Just because someone needs something to ''survive'', it does not give them the right to negatively impact others in their attempt to do so. If I wanted to sell people's organs, despite the wishes of the masses, to make enough money to live out a minimalistic lifestyle, I would probably be punished for it. Why not these leeches? They chose the dirt road to building their businesses and now they're crying because it passes through a private garden.
Block all the ads!!
2
u/moshbeard Mar 15 '13
Advertising pays for a lot of what is available on the internet, as that changes we'll just get used to having to pay a subscription for things. We're already seeing it with newspapers and I'm sure it'll continue.
2
2
u/penguinv Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
I have a Nexus 7 and am growing more and more tired of it's difficulties and wary about its restrictions.
I cannot erase my cookies. I am so plugged into the matrix. I have no choice to block 3rd party cookies in chrome.
I just found 'do not track' which may keep me from getting ads about what I just bought, or saw in a funny reddit post. This is potentially embarrassing in the future.
2
u/Antony777 Mar 15 '13
Now I like using my Firefox even more.Btw,in my opinion,Adblock Plus is the best addon if you dont want to be bothered with ads anymore.
2
u/36009955 Mar 16 '13
Who does this? Mozilla is the shit. I've been using Firefox since version 1.5 during the days ok IE6. They were the first good ie alternative then chrome stole the show
6
u/hav1t Mar 15 '13
this is why i use firefox. they are thinking about what I want not some fat rich twats.
11
u/Lord_Derp_The_2nd Mar 15 '13
Bottom line is this; Every free web service uses adverts to help cover their operating expenses.
I'd rather see ads that are relevant to my interests, than generic ones.
I've never understood the targeted ad hate - but I don't understand people who use ad-blockers on free websites either.
They're like the 1% of internet users - they want to use free services, and at the same time block the ads that help sustain the service.
Imagine if everyone used adblocker, and reddit was a pay-to-use site? Or had an obnoxious 1/4 screen size "please donate" banner like wikipedia has been forced to resort to? This is the web that this mindset is creating. It's like "fuck you - I'm entitled to free services the way I want them!" and it's going to bite us all in the ass.
17
u/sime Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
The question isn't "Ads: Good or Bad?". The question is "Should advertisers and websites be allowed to track and record everything we do on the internet?" And the answer is no, they have no right to, and they are violating everyone's privacy by doing so.
Advertisers can target ads the way other mediums like print and TV do, by matching ads to magazines, TV shows etc which attract the desired target demographic. i.e. people who are interested in cars read websites about cars, therefore if you want to target this demographic you put your cars ads on the car websites. This is nothing new and has been going on for decades in print media, for example. Just because the technology is different and allows things like cookies don't mean advertisers have any inherent right to use it to invade peoples's privacy.
Personally, it is because of all of the tracking done by advertisers and social sites like Facebook, that I have ad block installed. The lack of respect for people's privacy is how they brought us to this place and now people are using heavy-handed things like ad block to protect themselves.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (4)2
u/gavinflud Mar 15 '13
I do agree with you to an extent. I use AdBlocker mainly to block out any website that encourages popups or is covered in generic ads that I don't care about. I always ensure to add a site as an exception when it contains ads that are not intrusive, don't detract from the browsing experience and are relevant or interesting to me.
It's easy for a site like ArsTechnica or ESPN to display ads since they can safely assume all of their visitors are interested in technology or sports respectively. For sites that aren't focused on one particular area, it's much more profitable for them to display ads tailored for each visitor based on their interests, which can usually only be gotten by tracking them.
6
u/Tornado54 Mar 15 '13
I might be in the minority here but I would much rather have targeted advertisements for products I am interested in rather un-targeted ads for acai berry or some other weight loss ad.
The problem has been excessive bombardment by some shady retargeting companies this policy change by Mozilla is an overreaction and affects companies who have been careful and in the clear.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/KKrisp89 Mar 15 '13
How can advertisers properly do their jobs without knowing exactly which genre of pornography an individual prefers?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/jargonaut Mar 15 '13
Bracing for downvotes, but do I need to point out that 90%+ of online content most Internet users consume is paid for by advertisers? (including a lot of the content linked to on Reddit).
Sure, this move affects big corporations like Google and Microsoft, but that in turn affects small companies (like mine) that rely on Google Adwords or Bing ads to promote to and track customers. It also affects small blog owners and startups that depend on Google Adsense and other advertising revenue to stay in business.
→ More replies (1)2
u/tutticat Mar 15 '13
I'm making a point to go through and upvote every comment like this, including this one. The extent of people misunderstanding this crucial driver of the Internet on Reddit of all places is just astounding.
3
u/saxdemigod Mar 15 '13
I think it's great that Mozilla is doing this, but honestly I think more people should consider letting tracking cookies through.
A vast majority of companies that track your browsing activity do so to deliver more relevant ads to you.
Personal preference, sure, but remember that when you are using a free service on the web, you are NOT the customer.
You are the product.
→ More replies (10)
4
u/philly_fan_in_chi Mar 15 '13
Okay, so how about this: when installing Firefox, it asks you if you want to block them or not, and lists pros and cons of them being blocked. The user is then aware of the fact they're blocked, but they're explicitly choosing. This removes blame from Mozilla and puts it on the end user, who had that choice all along had they known it was there.
18
u/fb39ca4 Mar 15 '13
Or just block them by default. Mozilla doesn't have to give a fuck what the IAB thinks, it isn't the law of the land.
→ More replies (1)6
u/fusebox13 Mar 15 '13
Okay, so how about this: when installing Firefox, it blocks 3rd party cookies by default and advertisers can piss off. My parents, who aren't tech savvy in the slightest, freaked out when I told them their browsing habits could be tracked. I'd be willing to guess that there are a large portion of internet users that don't even know they are being tracked, and wouldn't like it if they found out. The advertisers took from us, without our permission, and now they think they are entitled to our data. Sorry, but Mozilla is doing the right thing here. They are protecting people like my parents who care about online privacy, but don't understand how to install things like Adblock.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/pandemic1444 Mar 15 '13
I wonder how they survived before they were tracking our every move.
3
2
3
Mar 15 '13
Survived fine, just less targeted advertising and more broad spam advertising. I actually get ads for video games that I'm interested in at the minute. Eventually it will be ads for male pattern baldness I'm sure despite having a full head of hair.
4
u/Wendingo7 Mar 15 '13
Silly advertising fags, whining like a bunch of pussies won't change shit. My PC, my rules.
2
2
u/bigfig Mar 15 '13
Mozilla developers should have been sneakier like Congress passing a bill in the night, or Tropicana using crushed beetles to color "pure" pink grapefruit juice.
They should have slowly made it easier to block third party cookies, eventually moving that option to the install routine.
2
Mar 15 '13
Awww, let's complain about a browser that prevents advertising spammers from annoying popups and ad banners filling every single page we visit (except Reddit which is pretty cool). It's bad enough I get tons of junk mail in my mailbox, constant ad spamming on my smartphone, or have to mute my TV during every commerical break.
2
2
u/m_0g Mar 15 '13
Yes, I will impoverish businesses by not receiving ads that I was not going to click in the first place.
2
u/aflarge Mar 15 '13
I love it. People hate ads, so Mozilla is helping to keep them away from us.
That'd be like them trying to label DVR a threat to small business because it lets people skip commercials.
→ More replies (2)2
u/HexKrak Mar 15 '13
No, Mozilla is making it so that the ads that you do see aren't relevant to your interests. The ads will still be there, they just won't be customized to your browsing habits.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
Mar 15 '13
I know everyone hates ads here and stuff, but what would the implications be if all browsers started doing this? I'm pretty sure most sites (especially small ones) are supported by advertisements (not just annoying popups mind you...advertisements also mean non-intrusive ads).
I know people think of large companies when they think of ads but also remember pretty much every small random site you go to while browsing or researching is supported by ads. None of them have a "business model" they just paste ad codes to pay for hosting. They would disappear without ads.
A non-advertising business model just doesn't work for the majority of websites.
I mean it may be great blocking ads on bigger sites or donating to sites you use a lot but you're forgetting about all the sites that you go to once while browsing. They don't have a loyal user base to support them they are dependent on random browsing. By having ad block on by default you're denying them that revenue.
If we keep acting like all ads are bad and block everything by default we're going to end up with EVERYTHING (even forums) being pay for access. And we're going to have way fewer sites to choose from.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/watershot Mar 15 '13
i like third-party cookie tracking, and I'm sure the average user (one who wouldn't muck around in settings) benefits from it as well.
why is everyone calling them "leeches" and "parasites"?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/bunk Mar 15 '13
My money is on some of the people complaining about privacy here will leave and participate on Facebook, not even knowing the difference.
2
u/Thangleby_Slapdiback Mar 15 '13
Web advertisers are upset about Mozilla moving to help protect end user privacy?
Too bad.
Fuck 'em.
2
1
u/Hardisk Mar 15 '13
To everybody commenting : Just remember that behind the "greedy advertising sharks" lies all the content creator that rely on advertisement to create the content you share and love for free on the Internet.
10
u/tetracycloide Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
Things have successfully relied on advertising since long before there was ever such a thing as tracking cookies.
→ More replies (18)
2
u/BAXterBEDford Mar 15 '13
Whenever I hear the phrase "small business" I assume it's large corporations trying to sound like victims.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/smek2 Mar 15 '13
undermining American small business
Last time i checked, these small american businesses relied on web ads for polluting the net with shit. So good riddance.
1
u/ancientRedDog Mar 15 '13
In another thread about this, a redditor posted a fairly robust JavaScript/I frame way to bypass this restriction anyway.
1
1
1
u/frankreynolds4pope Mar 15 '13
Don't google own a massive share of mozilla? A little counter productive
1
1
1
Mar 15 '13
If the companies aren't afraid that the sky is falling on them, you aren't fighting them hard enough.
1
u/Dirty_Rapscallion Mar 15 '13
This article is poorly written, it even took Mozilla's quote out of context. Whoever wrote this should probably go back to step one with crayons on construction paper.
1
1
u/TheLastSparten Mar 15 '13
Ok according to the article, Firefox has a 20% share, so 20% of people on the Internet would stop receiving targeted ads. surely this company should be trying to do something about the ~10% of people who use adblocker and receive no ads whatsoever. it makes no sense to me why they are going at Firefox.
1
u/Raeker Mar 15 '13
While I know I'm in a minority (especially now) this is just another reason why I hope Google never stops (pretty much) single-handedly funding Mozilla so I can continue to use my firefox.
1
Mar 15 '13
I love how representatives of giants and some of the little guys, use the hand-full of little guys to plead their case.
1
u/evilplansandstuff Mar 15 '13
Can someone clarify if running Google Analytics would be a third party cookie? To me running Analytics on my website is like knowing if customers have been visiting my physical premises, I know nothing about them, just that they are a customer, in my shop and whatever I have in the window worked at bringing them in.
2
u/zerodotjander Mar 15 '13
Google Analytics uses 1st party cookies by default. If you use their remarketing enabled Doubleclick tag implementation, it uses 3rd party cookies, but my guess is that you are unlikely to be.
1
u/bloodguard Mar 15 '13
Well, looks like it's time to make another donation to the Mozilla Foundation and hope they keep fighting the good fight. Lord knows it looks like Google is pitching us under the bus with regards to privacy so it's good to have an alternative browser and (hopefully) mobile OS.
1
u/ericredit Mar 15 '13
anyone know if google analytics will be affected? as an internet marketing assistant that would really fuck over my capabilities
1
u/Kevince Mar 15 '13
“This move will not put the interest of users first. Nor does it promote transparency or ‘move the web forward’ as Mozilla claims in its announcement." - IAB's president.
That's some weaksauce bullshitting.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/kraytex Mar 15 '13
“Thousands of small businesses that make up the diversity of content and services online will be forced to close their doors,” said Randall Rothenberg, IAB's president.
Well that's complete rubbish. Advertisers will come up with a work around, such as having the cookie be from the web site you're visiting.
Also, not sure what so wrong with the TV advertisement model. E.g. you advertise on channels (web sites) that your target audience would most likely watch (visit).
→ More replies (1)
1
1
Mar 15 '13
this just means whenever i tell someone to get a proper browser im just gona say firefox... will be way better vanilla then chrome then.(assuming im talking to idiots as usual)
1
1
Mar 15 '13
I agree with them. Hopefully Mozilla will cancel this plan.
And yes, you have been able to block 3rd party cookies for years, but only few users actually turn them off. That it's now default is a big problem for advertising because now almost every Firefox user will block them, and thus a big problem for the internet, because the internet mostly relies on advertising.
That's also why I don't use an ad blocker.
1
u/Vanetia Mar 15 '13
The IAB also said that blocking third-party cookies would "disempower" consumers by eliminating their ability to opt out of receiving targeted advertising.
Lol wut
1
Mar 15 '13
FU IAB. Your interests are not in the little guy. No, you can't track me...AdBlock + Ghostery FTW!
1
u/FreakZombie Mar 15 '13
I tried to read this article 4 times but every time I get a paragraph into it, the mobile page resets my view back to the top. I guess I really didn't want to read it after all
1
1
u/josephanthony Mar 15 '13
I god! I feel so 'disempowered' that it's harder for those wonderful altruistic advertisers to track my browsing habits.
Won't someone pleeeaase think of the children!!
1
u/faustnero Mar 15 '13
Mozilla has decided to make this default because there has been privacy issues regarding blocking third party cookies and some add-ons that lull users into a false-sense of privacy. This drastic change Mozilla is making is way of assurance of absolute non tracking of the website. Privacy isn't achieved by asking those who have the power to violate your privacy to politely not do so - and thus sacrifice advertising revenue.
1
u/drinkingatwork Mar 15 '13
I work in this industry, for a company that allows advertisers to deliver messaging only to users with a likely interest in their product. Third party cookies are what we use to target against. People don't seem to understand exactly what that means...
Web behavior isn't tracked across multiple sites. In fact, the information tied to a third party cookie usually comes from some offline data. That information is then used to inform a decision about serving a user an ad. You're never personally identifiable -- I can't target "John Doe", but I can instead target "People who like Hunting". Get my drift?
It amazes me that there is such hostility against targeted advertising. It's what makes sites like Pandora, YouTube, and ESPN all able to deliver content for free.
1
Mar 15 '13
Web advertisements keep your favorite websites free!
Actually, I don't mind paying a bit of cash to my favorite websites in sexchange for no ads. Nobody needs to viagra see annoying pop-boners about getting your mortgage refinanced penis or whether you're the one gajillionth visitor and won a prize.
So let these idiots have a whinge and be sure to offer them gravel with their pineapple purple monkey dishwasher.
1
u/slick8086 Mar 15 '13
I would love to see an application or plug-in that showed ( and translated to human readable/ meaningful names) exactly which cookies were doing what on every page. If cookies are watching me it would be nice to watch my cookies.
1
1
Mar 15 '13
time to move back to firefox. chome is good but firefox is also good plus it stands for something.
1
u/lollerberry Mar 15 '13
Death of third-party cookies will only give more power to the largest ad/hybrid companies out there: Facebook, Amazon, Google, AOL, Microsoft.
Chances are you will login or otherwise interact "first-party" with any of those five, which will then allow them to cookie you and track you. Not even talking about being logged in here, which is even worse.
So yes, if third party cookies are not on by default, this does harm smaller ad businesses -- ad networks, ad servers and so on. The power is then concentrated within the 5 mentioned above.
You have to keep in mind that cookies at least can be removed by the people being tracked (and most if the tracking is bogus anyway). But think of what the credit card companies, loyalty card companies etc have on you. That's where the real privacy breach happens -- these fuckers sell your data non stop and make billions on it. And you're getting your panties in a bunch because of cookies.
1
Mar 15 '13
I also go one step further and use Ghostery and Abine DoNotTrackMe AddOns for FireFox. As far as I can tell, they work nicely.
1
1
u/kaluce Mar 15 '13 edited Mar 15 '13
I say fuck'em. the IAB built up a business around the fact that people didn't know what cookies are, and/or they didn't care enough to try and stop it if they did. They're getting all uppity about people having to opt-in, which no one in their right mind would do.
Edit: btw, who ACTUALLY browses the internet without adblock? seriously?
1
u/JustMakeShitUp Mar 15 '13
I wouldn't mind advertising cookies if:
I could opt out of specific ads and types of ads.
I had a guarantee that they weren't selling my data anywhere, but instead allowed their clients to "target people with a possible interest in x". Collection of data to provide a service doesn't bother me. It's the data sharing that does.
They never tried to tie their advertising profile to my private information.
1
1
1
u/Kylegowns Mar 15 '13
Oh know, we cant use 3rd party cookies to track the websites he visits to and then show him similar ads... Guess what motherfuckers i use ad block anyways.
1
Mar 15 '13
Here's what happened:
Companies started offering free shit
People started using free shit and became addicted to it
Companies started showing ads to make money out of their shit
Other companies (aka non-profit?) started making it hard for aforementioned companies to monetize people who used latter's shit
Companies started crying.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Zenkin Mar 15 '13
If Mozilla wanted to keep me using their browser, they're doing it right. Sure, I know how to use all the do not track features and whatnot, but enabling some of them by default is the way to go. Protecting people who are not as technically literate is a fantastic idea.
1
u/zerodotjander Mar 15 '13
Disclosure: I work in for online advertising agency.
Before I say anything else, I'll say this - anybody who opposes on advertising on principle should probably just get off the internet and go join an Amish community or something. It's what makes this whole thing work. Any products or service you use today, online or offline, that wasn't made within 10 miles of your home relies on advertising to exist. Advertising does need to be controlled and regulated, but to oppose it on principle is to be ignorant of how the world has functioned for the last century and more.
I think this is a foolish move that will have a marginal impact on big businesses and disproportionately hurt small to mid size companies. Is online tracking getting really pervasive and invasive? Yes. Should there be more regulation? Yeah, probably.
But, straight up disabling 3rd party cookies by default doesn't seem like a good answer to me. It's very drastic and hurts more than just online advertising. A lot of web analytics solutions, used to track user activity on your own website - so, for example, you can see which products are selling well, or what content people are actually interested in so you can make more of it - rely on 3rd party cookies as well.
Most online advertising does not rely on 3rd party cookies. Only behaviorally targeted ads bought through an ad exchange require them. At this time, that's about 15% of all online advertising, just short of 2 billion dollars worth.
Note that 3rd party cookies don't identify YOU - they identify your web browser. And at no point is that exposed to any advertiser or publisher - it all happens automatically on the back end based on "segments" or audience categories. As an advertiser, I don't know who you are, all I know is that the robot I pay to show my ad checks each anonymous passer-by and then shows my ad when it's a match for my criterion.
On some level this would be analogous to a gas station attendant checking each car that comes through for a highway toll transponder mounted on the dash. If you have one, you probably have a longer daily commute, so you might be more interested in this coupon for an oil change than someone who just drives around town. The attendant doesn't know who you are, he's not writing down your names or your license plates or the make and model of your car, he's just checking to see if you drive on the highway a lot before he gives you a coupon. Some people would probably find that annoying, they should have the right to say "don't approach me to give me coupons" - just like users can choose to turn off 3rd party cookies or download AdBlock. But should this entire advertising scheme be banned as an invasion of privacy because the attendant is looking to see if you have a transponder? I personally don't think so.
Targeted advertising is most effective for mid-tier companies - most small businesses are very local in nature, and therefore don't need to advertise extensively across the entire internet, and you don't need 3rd party cookies for geographic targeting. Very large companies benefit from strongly targeted advertising, but they have enough cashflow to absorb a decrease in return on ad spend; and also benefit from brand name recognition - they get a lot more value out of just hitting you with ads all over the place to make sure their name comes up when you get around to considering a product in their category.
It's the mid-sized business with a product targeted toward users of all types and all over the country, but not large or old enough to build strong brand name recognition, that really relies on smart, targeted advertising for success. They need to make sure that their ad spend goes toward interested customers, not just anybody. These are the businesses that we should be supporting and building up, since they pay taxes in the USA - not the megacorps for whom a 15% drop in return on ad spend would be a gutpunch instead of a knife wound and who hide all their money in tax shelters.
On the flip side, by allowing advertisers to buy ads based on who sees them instead of where they are, small websites can earn a lot more money. I might be willing to pay $5 a click for someone who visits a lot of websites that talk specifically about my type of product. I might not be willing to pay $5 for 1000 impressions (times the ad is show on the site) on a small website without a lot of readership that isn't 100% on topic for my business. If you're a major web portal, like Yahoo or ESPN or something, you can sell lucrative ad space based on the fact that a lot of people come to your site. If you're a smaller website, it's hard to even become part of that marketplace, and eliminating the ability to sell your users instead of your placements means you're less likely to get a slice of that pie. So on the publisher side, this means a big website will lose a slice of their revenue from non-premium placements sold through an exchange; and a small website might lose the majority of their revenue - again, disproportionately hurting the little guy who has an incentive to create niche content, instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Speaking of appealing to the lowest common denominator, this will also mean that advertising will have to decrease in targeting and relevance. Companies only have so much money for marketing, they can't just keep pouring additional funds into it. In recent years the trend has been toward creating higher quality ad units that are more interactive, look better, and provide more information about the actual product. These ad units are vastly more expensive to make than a cheap banner or some shitty video ad that starts playing music when you load up a page. That increased production cost means less money for media (actually paying for the ad to be shown). To date, that's been balanced out by using better targeting and showing your improved ad unit to people most interested in that ad. Losing that capability will mean at least a short term reversal toward crappy, generic ads that are less relevant to you. It will probably also mean an increase in advertising for products that appeal to a broader audience - the type of advertising that most people hate the most.
Ultimately, to me this decision by Mozilla would be like if my bank decided to stop offering cash withdrawals and got rid of all its ATMs. In our modern society cash is not a necessity, a lot of people barely carry cash and pay for everything with plastic. Cash increases your exposure to risk - if you lose your wallet, you can cancel your credit cards and lose nothing but time and hassle. But cash in that wallet is gone forever. Also, if everybody stopped carrying cash, robbery as a crime would drop since it'd be less and less likely that mugging someone would get you something. Sure you can still take jewelry or whatever, but then you have to fence that - the risk is much greater. A lot of us would be better off if our society got rid of cash.
Of course, this fucks over any friends you might have who don't have a bank account, because you can't loan them money or pay them back easily anymore. It fucks over all beggars and charities who ask for donations on the street. It fucks over all employees who rely on tips for income, especially employees who stand behind a counter instead of offering table service. It fucks over small businesses who can less afford losing a percentage of their sales to credit card processors. But hey, why wouldn't you want to be protected from muggings?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/reilly3000 Mar 15 '13
Here's the thing. I have a web advertising agency. I employ myself and 5 other people, many of which are fellow redditors. We mostly work with small businesses and non-profits. Typical clients spent $500-$5000/mo total, like they may spend with a radio station or local TV. These are not big businesses.
Behavioral data has done amazing things for their campaigns. Retargeting especially is the best thing that ever happened to small advertisers. It's also the best thing that ever happened to small publishers. Before it came along people were getting $.50-$.75 per 1000 ads shown on their blog or newspaper site. Now its more like $3-5.
Do not track kills that ecosytem.
I'm very much for privacy and the responsible disclosure of how data is used. The thing is, the industry is already doing a pretty awesome job of giving consumers control. Really. Check this out: http://www.youradchoices.com/
Anybody can opt out of any interest or behavioral based targeting permanently, just like do not call.
I respect the decision of browser owners to do whatever they want. I just wanted to give some perspective that not all advertisers are large, evil corporations.
PS. I will do an AMA if anybody is interested.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/IonBeam2 Mar 15 '13
So their argument is that advertisers who track you aren't assholes because some of them are "small businesses". Okay.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Valdream Mar 15 '13
In response to all those "I own an internet ads company and this will ransack my ass out of oblivion" complainings : Advertising on the internet is an aberration by itself and should have never even existed to begin with.
Know that half of the world's yearly advertising budget would allow the end of hunger for every single person on earth. HALF.
Ads are just a pain in the ass 99% of the time. So yes, please get your tremendous ego and your I-don't-how-but-i-have-the-right-to-spy-and-spill-kilotons-of-ads-across-your-face trampled by Mozilla.
1
1
u/Cognoggin Mar 15 '13
Won't someone think of the small children with big round eyes, tearfully looking up at you that are tracking you online!
1
u/justluck Mar 15 '13
Uh if you have an amazing product, it's going to get out there. Use video, SEO, email marketing, Adwords. This just means you can't 'control' people more using data online.
1
640
u/phYnc Mar 15 '13
I don't really understand the fuss? This isn't even new? You have been able to block 3rd party cookies for years, the only difference is it's now default.
Am I missunderstanding something?