New Survey: Online Privacy, Internet Advertising and The Independent Web

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I am a hater when it comes to aggressive advertising; especially for the sort that has a remedy you have to take/buy for a condition that doesn't in reality exist.

I also hate government control, restriction and intervention in our everyday lives beyond the minimum necessary. So, if there is information I need about how this kind of legislation ties into excessive and unnecessary government control, I am all ears. Any links?

How about taking the time to educate us? You might actually get the kind of support and valid statistics you are looking for -- or not, as the situation dictates.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If we change the laws to prevent tracking, Im not convinced this will result in a doomsday scenario.

First, you need to be aware that the "tracking" does not identify you or your entire web browsing activity -- that is misinformation perpetuated by big media.

Second... consider this relatively similar scenario -- A television station is (because of legislation) unable to determine which ads play at which time... leaving the entire delivery of commercials to random chance and unable to ensure the Coke commercial plays as expected during American Idol... or unable to ensure that four consecutive commercials for diapers doesn't play during a commercial break for The Office. That scenario would be very similar to what the total removal of all tracking would cause online. The result would be ineffective and non-targeted ads, which would pay pennies-on-the-dollar as compared to current online advertising.


I agree that tracking cookies do not track the "entire" web-browsing activity of users, nor does it personally identify users except by , but it does a dang good job of tracking users' habits, which concerns, irritates, and freaks me out. Anyone who uses Google knows this, because the targeted ads based upon both web-browsing and email content are scary. For instance, one searches for "workout weights" and you get targeted ads about all kinds of muscle toner, diet, 'roids, etc, not mention ads within Gmail resultant from words that might be contained within messages.

I have a problem with this, even though i agree with your second point. Indeed, the targeted ads on say, television (or anywhere, or that matter) have to be targeted correctly (women's commercials during daytime soap, mens ads during ball games, etc) or else they simply are not functionally effective, and if not effective a waste of money and resources.

The thing that really crossed the line with me is this: a friend of mine sent me a link to a picture 'X.' I have never seen a picture of X, nor had i ever heard of X. After viewing that picture, i had that image embedded in advertisements from third party websites across the internet, ATS included.

That really bothers me, trying to use X, or something i might be interested in, to sell me something.

I would not, however, rather pay for a service, which is why i dropped the behemoth "you've got mail!" many years ago for the (free) Gmail. So, i guess i am a hypocrite, wanting something for free but not wanting what makes it free. So be it.

While i understand that ad revenue drives small and indy websites and keeps them free and operating, i find them a nuisance and a distraction--across the board. Whether on tv, radio, internet, billboards, fliers, junk mail, i loathe them, and i usually make it a point to not use said service or buy said product simply because of this, and especially do not ever click on them. We are plastered with ads everywhere we go, and i try to avoid them at all costs. I feel that they are an intrusion, they are unwanted, i did not ask for them, so i want nothing to do with them.

They are insidious little creatures.

But that's my personal opinion.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence
So, i guess i am a hypocrite, wanting something for free but not wanting what makes it free. So be it.


I dont think so. I think the advertisers and marketers are just getting too greedy. They WERE getting paid, and we were tolerating it. They just keep ratcheting it up. Enough is never enough, everyone always wants more, more, more.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I don't understand why this is being framed as an "Either/Or" issue.

Why doesn't ATS *offer* a PAID subscription option? People who pay don't have to put up with advertising & tracking. People who chose *not* to pay deal with advertising & tracking.

The only LAW that should be made is that consumers are offered a CHOICE.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Understand this: I love abovetopsecret. Anyone who has read my posts in threads whose subject is the operation of, existance of, and benifits of exposure to this website , will know that I could not rate highly enough, the massive benifits I have personaly gained from this site. The truth of the matter is , that I have had more intellectual communication since joining this site, than I had in the entirety of my school life years ago, and my day to day life since. I do NOT take this for granted.

However, although I love this site,and would be harmed by its inability to support itself , I cannot support the position of the management of this site, or any other , if they intend to fight against preventing advertisers from ANY tracking of people or computers. It is categoricaly NOT the case, that in order to advertise products or services, it is necessary for companies to observe a tracking policy of any nature. This is proven by the fact that this site often advertises things to me, that I personaly have no use for. If tracking based advertising were worth the doing, then there would be no reason for me to see an advert that doesnt speak to me personaly.

I see no reason to accept the idea of tracking based advertising ,when a simple contract between the advertiser and the website which will carry the ads, to take a bunch of banners and panel ads, and just display them, since this would be just as effective as far as I can tell, considering the glaring pointlessness of some ads. I have no time for tracking ads. To be honest, theres very little on the internet, which I would deem worth paying for, let alone some of the nonsense I have seen being advertised.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence
The thing that really crossed the line with me is this: a friend of mine sent me a link to a picture 'X.' I have never seen a picture of X, nor had i ever heard of X. After viewing that picture, i had that image embedded in advertisements from third party websites across the internet, ATS included.

Yeah, that can be creepy, and is the inspiration for a lot of concern.

However, knowing the core technology as I know it (back in day, Yahoo did so much more of that type of thing than you can possibly imagine), it's all anonymized and automated code doing the deed.

Would it concern you in the same way if you had an absolute confidence that 48 hours later, the Internet "fingerprints" that caused that to happen were completely erased and no longer part of anyone's data?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Why doesn't ATS *offer* a PAID subscription option?

Two reasons:

(1) Such a revenue model would never approach the income needed to support core operations. Even major media sites such as the NY Times are having trouble making a paywall or paid subscriptions a viable revenue source.

(2) It would create an artificial tier of self-described "elite" members who anticipate they are more worthy of "more" consideration because of their monetary contributions. (I've seen this elsewhere, and refuse to introduce that to ATS.)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Further more, it is misleading to claim that these websites are not "personally" tracking you or that they can't track what you do on other websites. Let me explain an example.

While it is true that ATS does not track "personally identifiable" information, as per the Privacy statement, that's not necessarily true with sites like, say eBay.

Why do I mention eBay??

Enter "doubleclick.net". ATS third-party advertiser/tracker "doubleclick.net" runs a script on ATS to do track "non-personal" information about what information is on the site to "better deliver effective advertising" to your webpage here on ATS.

eBay also uses "doubleclick.net". eBay has personally identifiable information about who you are, including your name, home address, credit card info, etc.

Say I'm reading about an article on an ATS article about JFK's assassination. "doubleclick.net" sees "guns" mentioned quite often in the thread and so delivers an ad for Remington Ammunition. ATS doesn't share with doubleclick "who" you are, you are fine.

But then you open a new tab in your browser and log-in to eBay, and search for sniper technique books. ATS doesn't control the business relationship between eBay and doubleclick.net, and so doubleclick.net/eBay could share info together and figure out that RIGHT AFTER you read an article on JFK on ATS (remember, double-click knows your IP address), you went and bought a book on how to sniper.

Of course, you aren't paranoid because maybe you are just researching whether what Oswald did was possible (or whatever), but maybe "doubleclick.net" has a special relationship with, oh, say, The Department of Homeland Security to exchange favors for information (or whatever).

My point is, while ATS by itself doesn't do anything bad, once they hand over ANY information to third-parties, then they can do whatever they want with it, and that is not in ATS's control.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: clarify



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Why doesn't ATS *offer* a PAID subscription option?

Two reasons:

(1) Such a revenue model would never approach the income needed to support core operations. Even major media sites such as the NY Times are having trouble making a paywall or paid subscriptions a viable revenue source.

(2) It would create an artificial tier of self-described "elite" members who anticipate they are more worthy of "more" consideration because of their monetary contributions. (I've seen this elsewhere, and refuse to introduce that to ATS.)

Are you trying to tell me that you make more money in 1 month of advertising for 1 user, than you could make charging the user for a 1 month subscription?

I'd pay $10/month for ATS. Are you saying that you make more than $10 off ONLY ME in advertising in one month?

As far as the "elite" expectation issue - I don't see why that would concern you. Treat all members the same. Make it a mantra. Put it in the T&C. Big deal. It's not really a valid excuse.

Remember, it's an option. You tell the PAID member if they don't like something, they can stop paying and revert to advertising membership.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Would it concern you in the same way if you had an absolute confidence that 48 hours later, the Internet "fingerprints" that caused that to happen were completely erased and no longer part of anyone's data?


No, not for me. I really dont want advertising targeting me and only me based on my browsing. At all. Its weird and creepy and invasive. Its like asking if you dont mind if a stalker stalks you, but only for 48 hours, and then you will get a new stalker.

I really dont want to be stalked. At all.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


The results should be interesting. On most sites I'd expect most answers would be of positive value for you, but here? It will be interesting to see if the response is rational or not. People who feel entitled to the fruits of others work for free will never change. People who think they are being tracked for sinister reasons will not change.

Good luck on your trip and if you you take the extra step of a petition signed by registered voters, I'll sign without hesitation. I'll start emailing my Senator and Representative Monday and mention it to others and ask them to do the same. This one had slipped by me. Thank you for the heads up.

I hope folks understand the seriousness of this. It will end most of the sources you use now and to me it seems you need to decide if your willing to tolerate harmless third party cookies and ignore the ads. The other option is to cave in to childish paranoia and the ridiculous idea that these sites can operate for free and that those who do the work should work for free. I find the idea of nothing but subscription sites existing very disturbing.

I am curious, what actions are Google, Yahoo and the like taking? You know?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Have I come to a conspiracy site that whines about ad coverage and marketing info accrual while a war rages round them for the entire internet on the globe and in each country?

A war about the right to earn revenues on a site where there are no other legal options that gives FREE SPEECH to people who fight the party line (ATS.com, et al). where access to the globe has caused citizens, then and now, to rise in upheaval against their regimes.

While I applaude all concerned for the marketing accrual on their online activity, focus on this; you are like the kittens who are so busy with the dancing butterflies at the end of the stick that you do not see you have been loaded into the animal control truck.
edit on 14-5-2011 by angelchanneller because: Syntax



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Are you trying to tell me that you make more money in 1 month of advertising for 1 user, than you could make charging the user for a 1 month subscription?

90% (sometimes more) of our daily traffic comes from non-members who would never consider a paid subscription to access the site.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I merely wish to add a single thought here....

I believe the states also need to be reined in...

Any bill focused on achieving and maintaining net freedom MUST take into account the attempts by state legislatures to force monies in tribute from businesses that operate interstate...

It is also an aspect that needs to be brought to their attention...

Or at the very least the federal government needs to claim the exclusive right to tax internet businesses... Which I believe is at the current rate...


I could be wrong...

I mention this because of this thread of mine...

Texas passes bill....

I mention this not to advertise my thread but to bring to light that state governments are out trying to take all the money they can....

It will affect advertisers as well I believe across the nation.... Their are some nasty implications to this...



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

This kind of advertising is ruining the internet for me, why should I care if my fighting back ruins the internet for them? When people get angry enough to go to war, they usually dont care if one of both parties die on the battlefield.

I hear all this drama about how if people arent making tons of money from ads there will be no blogs, no artists, and to that I say bull. Ive been on the internet long enough to know that there were bloggers before you made money off blogging. The ads came after, to exploit the popularity of the blog. People will do what they really love for free. They may not do it full time. The money making aspect of advertising has caused people to do all sorts of things that degrade the quality of the net just to ramp up traffic and thus revenue.

There is no natural point at which advertisers will use good judgment and some concern for the feelings of people and stop their relentless push into our lives. We have to make them stop, or it will go on, and on, and on, like it has.


How do you think capitalism operates? What is the purpose of marketing firms? Why are there BILLIONS of online threats in terms of virii and worms?

You have not really given much consideration of anything! You expect people to rent server space from their own pockets just to provide you with FREE posting access? Someone has to pay for the expenses and it should be the users of the site. The fact they allow targeted advertisement means you are not charged a monthly access fee.

The tracking is as anonymous as it can be and it serves you as well as the marketing companies in that it provides rellevant ads that are safe to explore and make purchases. The marketing comapanies are not criminals who will steal your credit card and run it dry as with identity theft. They simply sell ads.....

The very real threat is the NSA and project Echelon which monitors every email, post, fax, telephone call, satellite reconaisance up to a meter from miles in the sky. Another real threat is a virus that installs on your computer just because you accessed a site and decided to download something. I have actually ruined a computer that way through some rootkit that could not be removed no matter what antivirus and antimalware software I could get my hands on.

If this thinly veiled legislation goes through then I see blogging dropping down by at least 80% and only the very wealthy will pay money out of their pockets to rent server space. The big transnationals however do not need tracking cookies because YOU GO TO THEM because everyone thinks their products are way superior to some small mom and pop retailer and knock-off asian merchandise.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Im sorry, did you miss the fact that I said I dont mind tolerating some kinds of ads and just didnt like the newest form of ads that target me personally?

Money was being made before this new more intrusive form of advertising was invented. It can still be made if the most intrusive type of tracking is regulated.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Im sorry, did you miss the fact that I said I dont mind tolerating some kinds of ads and just didnt like the newest form of ads that target me personally?

Money was being made before this new more intrusive form of advertising was invented. It can still be made if the most intrusive type of tracking is regulated.


Do they track your name, address, telephone #, credit card #...if so you are correct. If they don't then you are being overly paranoid. Fact of the matter is I trust marketing companies way more than I trust the government that wants a one world dictatorship and a verichip implant in my shoulder.

Think again because conspiracy sites may be our last defense to tyranny!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Im sure you made the brownie list. You can stop haranguing me for having my own opinion now.

You reasoning is utterly flawed. There is no reason the interwebz cannot survive without something it survived without for every other year of its existence besides the last 12 months or so when these ads that target you based on your browsing habits began popping up.

Edit to add,

And, to address another fallacious point you brought up, I DONT expect "free" access to anything. Im one of many who would be willing to pay to opt of of the most intrusive tracking. Its not even offered as an option. And you need to take some marketing courses if you trust advertisers so much. That will cure you. If they could develop and legally use mind control devices to part you from your money you can rest assured they would.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


I completely agree with you. However I strongly disagree that the cookies are the answer. While they may seem harmless they are easily manipulated and they Identify your computer which means if someone has a clue like my 11 year old. From that information they can dig deeper and find out what every they want. make no mistake it's a foot print.(well not one an 11 year old) I do understand the issue as far as revenue, However people that want to advertise will come to this site. If the cookies are blacklisted. IMHO

This is my understanding as I have been told and If I'm wrong I'd be the first to admit it. I was told when I get hacked it's been through cookies. If someone with more knowledge knows this to be inaccurate I would happily like to be corrected. I like this site and I wouldn't want to hurt it's revenue because I'm not aware of the facts.

I do understand business and the traffic that this site get's advertisers would come to ATS If they had to to get their Ad's on here



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Now see I don't feel they track all that. I do feel if someone wants that information cookies make it easier for them to do it. Many well intended things on our computers can and are manipulated. That is my understanding anyhow.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join