Originally posted by Argyll
To summarise, these schemes are not as innocent as some would have us believe.

The information you posted does not relate to this discussion.

Phorm Webwise is a technology that can generate demographic and psychographic profiling based on the data obtained from deep-packet inspection... which can include personal information both because of the intrusiveness of the technology, and the source (ISP's).

This discussion is in relation to the non-personal information used by third-party ad-serving firms to generate behavioral and interest-based profiles.

Originally posted by Argyll
I think they are both identical in their aims and claims

Firstly, the opening post outlines the effort to generate legislation, wrapped in a disguise of privacy protection, to remove the most significant revenue-generating option available to small independent web sites. The focus is on web site operators and the third party ad networks who supply the advertising. There is no packet inspection involved.

Even the misinformed and the disinformationists associated with the above have separated profiling via deep-packet inspection from profiling via surfing habits.

The technology of deep-packet inspection has the potential to learn everything about all of your online activity, including the specific products you bought, the web sites you joined (and which user name you picked), the emails you sent, the emails you received, the videos you watched, the illegal MP3's you downloaded, and then associate all of that information with your name, address, and credit card number.

The two methodologies of profiling are very different and one is intensely intrusive, while the other is not.


(typo correction)

[edit on 18-6-2009 by mister.old.school]

Originally posted by golemina
No offense, but you're not very technical are you?

Given your lack of detail when asked for same, I can only assume that offense was indeed intended.

Additionally, it appears to be you who is lacking in a fundamental understanding of the technology involved.

Originally posted by Argyll
if you look at what Phorm claim they will do, and then look at what they can do

That is the crux of the matter. One technology (tracking via cookies) merely observes from a distance. The other (deep packet inspection) watches closely over your shoulder, in your pockets, and in your mailbox.

If politicians in the government would apply the same standards to "online privacy" as they do to their own data collection for campaign donation solicitation, then Phorm's deep-packet inspection would be allowed to do whatever it wants to do. The typical double-standard is beyond sickening.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I'll jump in.

Originally posted by quackers
Are you going to suggest next then that software such ad AdBlock are banned, because they achieve exactly the same end result.

Yes, I would.

Perhaps you should consider alternatives to advertising. By this post of yours what I see is a remarkable level of hypocrisy. You would be willing to make something currently legal illegal because it would serve your financial interests, a little bit fascist if I do say so. This is of little difference to what a lot of people are complaining about in this financial sewer we are in, where those who make the money are being allowed to do so at the expense of the individual. Also, considering the amount of ranting about why advertising is bad and how it's purpose is brainwashing lalala ect ect ect, then some of those same people sit here defending one's right TO advertise, well it's just more hypocrisy. It's the same old do as I say not as I do mentality. No one is stopping you from showing advertisements and the fact you'd rather not give your users the option, well I think that speaks for itself.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by quackers]

Originally posted by quackers
You would be willing to make something currently legal illegal because it would serve your financial interests, a little bit fascist if I do say so.

I have no idea how you could draw that conclusion... care to elaborate?


I would love to rely less on advertising and more on direct revenue opportunities... which is one of the avenues we're trying to explore... such as our book and a few other projects we're working on.

But the reality is, that the only currently viable revenue model that enables a publisher to provide free (or nearly free) content is through advertising. Yes, some ads suck... some more than others. But it's the system we have. Hopefully, the social arrangement of doing our best to deliver interesting content in exchange for tolerating advertising is fair and equitable.

What I fail to understand about all this, is why with all the contentious US legislation being considered, web sites in the US do not consider going off-shore as many banks (Cayman Islands etc.) have done. Surely an ATS hosted in Country X that does not have the same limiting rules and legislation is still ATS?
If I host a site here in South Africa, I only have to abide by South African legislation. Anyone in the world can then access my content.

Surely, a mass migration of hosted web content from the US will cause a radical rethink of existing laws?
There is an old marketing axiom - shoppers vote with their feet. If traffic is going elsewhere, revenue is potentially going elsewhere as well, and the US government will hurt where it hurts most - with loss of tax revenue.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I have no idea how you could draw that conclusion... care to elaborate?

I drew that conclusion due to the answer you gave, that you would consider banning something that makes it possible for users to block your advertisements. Unless I misunderstood "Yes, I would".

Hopefully, the social arrangement of doing our best to deliver interesting content in exchange for tolerating advertising is fair and equitable.

Maybe you underestimate your userbase. I'm fairly new here, but am familiar with the workings of sites with rather large amounts of users. There is a degree of loyalty found amongst such communities and I know for a fact that when the loyal majority are called upon they react in a positive manor. In this instance it would be opting in. I, like you, cannot see this being passed, however, if if did I don't see where the big deal is as it is something sites already contend with albeit via other methods. Does the availability of ad blockers stop advertisers from wanting to advertise on site? No, not in the slightest, so why would an opt in scheme.

Much mention has been made here about the so called "right to privacy."

The Right to privacy, which does exist in the Bill of rights, says you have a right to privacy of your "papers and effects.' Nothing more and nothing less.

Originally posted by quackers
I drew that conclusion due to the answer you gave, that you would consider banning something that makes it possible for users to block your advertisements.

Well of course. We go through an extensive effort and significant expense to provide a free service seen by millions of people a month.

-1- What would make you think I'd not be against anything that blocks our only source of revenue that keeps the lights on?

-2- If you enjoy this site, and use it daily, why would you deny us the ability to derive a small amount of revenue from your use of the site?

I'm fairly new here, but am familiar with the workings of sites with rather large amounts of users. There is a degree of loyalty found amongst such communities and I know for a fact that when the loyal majority are called upon they react in a positive manor.

What you describe is generally true, however, for those types of communities, the typical traffic patterns are 80% members and 20% visitors... we're significantly opposite, with traffic patterns in the zone of 90% visitors and 10% members. A typical month sees over 1.3 million new visitors from Google search alone. It would be impossible for a comparatively small base of members to provide the financial support needed for the technology, support, and staff needed to keep ATS alive and responsive to the massive number of visits from non-members.

Originally posted by quackers
Perhaps you should consider alternatives to advertising.
[edit on 18-6-2009 by quackers]

I have read through most of the posts on this thread, and skimmed the few pertaining to jews etc. There seems to be a lot of ignorance to the true costs associated to having a website such as this one, as well as the potential revenue streams associated to it. In this case, I have to side with the duck.

As a Canadian ISP, I can personally attest that there are many sites with 10k a month regular users that do not rely on advertising. Nor do they require 8 core systems with 4 gigs of ram and solid state drives. This isn't to say that obtaining these types of systems is a bad thing, it is prudent to think to the future and I applaud the site owner for his foresight.

This thread is about 3rd party advertising being ruled to be an opt in only process. I don't see this as a bad thing, as I have also had to endure "Party Poker" popup ads when clicking on links after searching for something entirely unrelated in Google.

As has been stated, most people do not click on these ads. Much of the current advertising models have been relegated to "Impressions" or simply loading the ad, generating some revenue. With the "click fraud" and script blockers in use i doubt even this ad revenue will be around for long.

I would like to believe that this bill has been tabled to prevent those sites that spawn 30 windows and clicking anywhere will spawn additional windows from their ongoing pollution of the internet. Sites like ATS, if they choose to employ 3rd party advertising can do so within their TOS and not suffer any ramifications. However, the government doesn't ever do things with a pure heart. So it is very likely that squeezing out the smaller people will in fact be their hidden agenda. Do these smaller groups actually make any money from their ads? Probably not. Are these smaller groups suffering prohibitive costs? Again Probably not.

Currently, large ISP's are offering their hosting etc at +/- 8$ a month. In many cases they are offereing 500+Gb of transfer and unlimited email accounts. (They don't tell you this transfer is throttled and you will never see any more than 30kb/sec but that's a different story) I can also provide you with information showing that some ISP's will host your site for free, just because you obtained a domain name. The goal in this case is undercutting, squeezing out the smaller ISP and then raising the price to what they really should be once the competition has been crushed.

Perhaps ATS may provide an alternative to advertising. With 10K+ users, a 5$ a month no advert subscription would probably not kill us, but would generate $50K a month in real revenue for the sites costs. Now if 2 guys, and their servers and hosting is in excess of $50K per month, I really suggest they contact me and i can point them to a peer that would be far fairer.

Essentially, as a TV generation, we are accustomed to being inundated with ads, and not having to pay for anything ourselves. With TV sure, that's how it is but on the net, if a site is worth visiting everyday, and participating like this then it might just be worth 5$/mo to keep it alive. The smaller guys will keep their stuff going, even out of pocket until they develop a following.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex

There is a solution, it has to do with the kinds of ads and business promotions that are being done on the internet to begin with. There are many small businesses that need a place to secure advertisements, for a monthly fee, not an exhoberant, click and pay kind, much like the western advertisement newspaper in Penticton, which is a free paper delivered daily paid by local advertisors. I've noticed the gimmicky nature of much of the online advertisements, or the huge gaming corps are the main ones on these sites. The thing is, I would like to see local forums like ATS, in every region, serving the region economy locally with adds. There could be an entire category of advertisements at the start of the threads categories, and it would be monthly fees, with some bigger focuses, interviews even. Small businesses that produce eco products, muscicians, artists, craftsman, many would pay for this. Even more so, many would look at the ads and explore local crafters, musicians, alternative nutrients, treatments, inventions, services. I know I would. And some of these people should be interviewed and presented.

There is many ways to advertise real peoples businesses. And generate money. Now larger forums could do this with certain businesses, but local forums that had links to all the big ones, would really wake people up. I would make it non-profit somehow so that profit be sunk into a variety of fun educational local events such as: rock concerts, face painting for kids, movie nights (ie. zietgeist, endgame, max igan), survival groups, seed banks, coop collecting and preparing, (most are too poor to be well stocked), teens encouraged to learn and discover alternative energy, building infared telescopes, ufo mediation watching groups, local radio talk shows, and interviews and local press for real news, the sky is the limit. Sure people would be slow to wake up, but they also love voicing their opinions, and rarely do in the paper, so I have a feeling this could be taken to a whole new level of grass roots forums.

Advertising could have integrity and serve the local economies of variuos regions. Larger forums could serve more national or international businesses. There could be weekly profiles for the most favorited product or business. We could encourage people to not buy from the corporate pyramid schemes, but to our power back and buy from each other. Think about it. We just need to rethink this game and restructure it our way, with integrity.

Edit to add: food giants for example are one area where the illegal pyramid scheme mascarading as a free enterprise democracy can be challenged if people only use their heads. I'd do the advertising and generate a plan with the profit to create a large commercial food safety approved kitchen that numerous people in the community could use to get their businesses off and running, with food safety courses running all the time, then grow heritage seed products and produce wonderful food items and advertise in local forums with local delivery. Online solutions for health, same thing. Eco makeup. The skies the limit. But here in Canada, to even make bath salts requires food safety and a commercial kitchen, so we really need to think local and help each other start alternative businesses, and bring the economy back home to our homes and our neighbors. Eventually we boycott all their empires.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by mystiq]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
-2- If you enjoy this site, and use it daily, why would you deny us the ability to derive a small amount of revenue from your use of the site?

I would not deny you of anything, as I stated, I don't particularly care about advertisements here and would opt in. But, if as you state the advertising revenue is "small" then surely it would not take much to offset that loss if on the off chance such revenue were to fall as a result of the opt in scheme.

A typical month sees over 1.3 million new visitors from Google search alone. It would be impossible for a comparatively small base of members to provide the financial support needed for the technology, support, and staff needed to keep ATS alive and responsive to the massive number of visits from non-members.

If you provide users with a decent service they will freely pay you for providing them with that service. I have no idea what it costs to run ATS but I know of sites who's server and bandwith cost per month are in excess of $3-4,000 and who have been running for years on nothing but donations, 0 advertisements. I'd find it difficult to believe that it would cost ATS anywhere near that (thought with streaming media I suppose it's possible). I guess now would be the time to be proactive, stick a donations button up and if it pans out then you'll not so worried about losing ad revenue.

Originally posted by quackers
I know of sites who's server and bandwith cost per month are in excess of $3-4,000 and who have been running for years on nothing but donations

Our raw bandwidth costs are much more than that. Last month, we surpassed 18 terabytes of graphic and video bandwidth... and it's delivered over a high-performance global CDN system, which can get pricey.

bs

This doesn't 'kill independent websites'.

it just hurts the ones which do it for profit.

meanwhile it reduces the Big Brother reach of Google and other ad services.

you gotta be kidding me... you're against this???