Seeking the advice and input of ATS members on an important issue...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This is a disgrace. Whilst i have a major issue with targetted being forced upon customers without their consent as BT did with Phorm. i have no issue with the kinds of ads that are displayed on ATS and many other good websites. For anyone interested you can find Phorm information here.

en.wikipedia.org...


ATS adverts are really not a problem for me, i have no issue with them and this smacks of a way of stopping small websites, a backdoor to removing material they don't want online.

Apart from this i have to ask how the USA seems to think they own the internet, i'm getting rather tired of it.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by Alethea

 

I think the problem is that when given the choice most would opt out. If most people are opting out, then why would advertisers pay to advertise on that website. Thus the reasoning behind taking revenues away from small and medium websites.

Exactly -- I don't think anybody "likes" 3rd party cookies, however, I understand that without them, many small to medium websites would find it very difficult to be profitable.

Most people would "opt out", which would cause the websites (such as ATS) to lose advertisers, which would then cause those websites (such as ATS) to perhaps go out of business.


[edit on 11/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Oh i forgot to say, yes i would sign an online pertition for this and i would even write to my local MP. Despite this being something the USA is trying to implement (again why the hell does the USA think they own the net?) i am sure enough pressure on local politicians of foreign countries could help the effort.

I will support this effort.

I am glad ATS is going proactive on this issue.

reply to post by Alethea


The problem is, it adds another onerous and unnecessary level of confusion to something people already don't understand. There's no such thing as a "malicious cookie". It's a classic FUD situation.

Inventing a problem where none exists and correcting something that needs no correction. This can only help Big Media and hurt the little guy. That's the entire underlying purpose.

If they wanted to do something beneficial, they could start an international effort to seek out and prosecute creators of malware and viruses. What they're talking about here is setting up unnecessary boundaries to competition from smaller sites.

Why do you think that is? Here's a hint... we're all of us together making the Big Media players a little less relevant.


[edit on 11/25/09 by MrDesolate]

I support your cause. In a way, an Internet that isn't free, isn't really the Internet at all.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



ATS means a lot to me and I don't want to lose it.I'm in,where do I sign?

Also, for UK users, the British government is proposing an amendment to the Copyright Law - at illegal download and video sharing.

The fact the membership, at ATS, use video links in our threads - to enhance the subject matter - the government would (under the amendment) see our work illegal.

ATS could be blocked from UK servers, and users disconnected.

Yes, we need to stop this. If we can not stop this it will be the point of the wedge that leads to more restriction. The mainstream media has said nothing about the Climategate exposure and we are weeks away from the Copenhagen Treaty that Obama will sign. If you don't want world government that absolutely will eliminate web sites like ATS we need to stop that too.

If people dont like 3rd party cookies they should click on the site.

This Little Hitler has no right to tell people which site they can/cant socialise on, any such legislation passed through wont be met with a welcome response and this guy had better watch his back everywhere he goes. -Just a friendly piece of advice-

I'm in... One liner, but you did ask

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yes of course.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


It's funny...

I was just thinking about this possibility last night.


Strange.

Edit to ADD:

Count me in


[edit on 25-11-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by Alethea

 

I think the problem is that when given the choice most would opt out. If most people are opting out, then why would advertisers pay to advertise on that website. Thus the reasoning behind taking revenues away from small and medium websites.

Exactly -- I don't think anybody "likes" 3rd party cookies, however, I understand that without them, many small to medium websites would find it very difficult to be profitable.

Still, you are voting in favor of giving up your freedom of choice!

It certainly takes away your benevolence in choosing to "give" when it is demanded of you.

Also, I think it would make website owners a little more responsible about the selection of ads they will run. If the site is hosting offensive ads, yes, people will opt out. If you find that an ad has frozen your computer or caused computer problems because the website owner is indiscriminate and "anything goes...just to make a buck" then of course, you will want to opt out.

This proposal will make the website owner choose more carefully the companies it will allow for representation as well as giving the people the right of choice.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Yes -- I agree that ATS advertisements do not bother me, PLUS I agree that advertisements keep the internet basically free.

However, the flip side to this are OTHER websites (not ATS). I find it kind of creepy that advertisers KNOW what websites I visited (by using 3rd party cookies) and then target the banner ads toward my "interests" based on those cookies.

I may find it a bit creepy, but I also understand that the money from those advertisers is what is keeping many websites in business. Without advertisers, free internet content would be hard to find. These 3rd party cookies are a "necessary evil"

[edit on 11/25/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I hate to be negative but I doubt a petition will have any effect ,It may make us feel like we are doing something but as for changing policy , they dont have a history of success , there is a world-wide NWO drive to censor and sanitize the internet , turn it into a shopping tool and what we want or think doesn't come into it .
I'm all for doing something and if a petition is started I will sign it but we will have to get people we know to sign , and people they know and so on , if its to be done it needs to be BIG .

I'm in.

To the people of Virgina, vote this clown out.

I proudly support this!

ATS is the leader in so many ways, and this is yet another example of ATS taking the reins!

I'm in... Where do I sign!

Don't really have much to add other than what has been said by the other members here. I think this should be brought up to all the members for the petition.

Originally posted by Alethea

Still, you are voting in favor of giving up your freedom of choice!

Apparently you don't know how browser settings work. You're giving up nothing of the kind.