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

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Keep up the good work Boss. The web needs more like you. This is about the Gov. take over to feed us what thay like no more no less.

for the protection of Independent Web!

That sad part yet is that small...independent sites are expendable to big companies who advertise on them. Most big companies probably don't care. Why...because they can outsource their ads to sites in other countries, esp., if the products are available there and with online shopping, if the US restricts ads.
Let's hope enough care to help stop the limitations proposed.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Most of the time when I go to an online store, I return to ATS to find an advertisement for the very product I was researching. I'm fully aware that this is only possible using 3rd-party advertising. I'm further aware that I'm essentially supporting the existence of ATS to a much greater degree because in part the ads are specifically targeted in a way that makes me more likely to click them.

Most importantly, if I don't like it, I can avoid it using my own brain... I don't have to use the violent force of law to force SkepticOverlord into suppressing a form of speech, internet cookies in specific. Internet cookies are speech, and any law that suppresses that is illegal suppression of free speech.

That said, there will hopefully be more private ways developed in the future. For example, paying a membership fee for more private free internet content services. I hope that new technologies start to enhance privacy instead of diminish it even though it would seem to go against the flow of things.

A couple of you guys are a little TOO paranoid. Do you not understand that without cookies, many of your favorite smaller websites would not exist?

I was impressed with the survey results, and that I was in the majority on every single one of my replies. I am glad to see like-minded individuals on, but mostly off lol, the site.

I don't have a problem with cookies. I usually delete all of my browsing history when I exit the browser. It's mainly out of habit, not paranoia.

I've never understood people's paranoia over online privacy as it pertains to cookies and tracking. But as someone who works on the digital side of a major media company, I am very familiar with the concepts of action tracking, cookies, and such, and it ultimately comes down to trying to deliver ads that are as relevant as possible to the individual user, because that is what is going to make money for the site. This is true for big and small companies. Note that this is a perfectly legitimate business practice: a company provides a service to the consumer, free of charge, in exchange for the opportunity to track the consumer's usage of that service so that the company might effectively market products that are most relevant to the consumer. Tracking users' behaviors (which pages they visit, what they searched for, etc) does not mean somebody somewhere is personally monitoring you. (Unless, say, the government is spying on you, and the court orders the website to turn over the information they have collected in order to somehow use it against you. But that is a completely different issue.)

I guess I'm just curious, what is it that people think companies are going to do with the type of information that is being collected that will be bad for the user?

I understand people's concern over keeping private certain sensitive personal info that the user has given to a company, such as when you purchase a product and you must provide your name, address, etc (truly personal and sensitive data). But that is distinctly different than what this survey/legislation is dealing with, as far as I can tell. Perhaps people confuse the two concepts (anonymous vs personally identifiable data), as both are associated with the term "online privacy". But perhaps certain corporate interests intentionally try to muddy the two concepts together (i.e. cookies and tracking = compromising your personal information) in order to, as the survey suggests, rally support for legislation that could ultimately bring about the demise of smaller sites to benefit those same larger corporate interests.

The vast majority of users of this site do not even sign up for a membership. Just imagine how few then would go as far as paying money for it.

Those advocating a paid membership are thus advocating for a VERY small, elite club; or in other words, a very small web site.

I don't think SO would be happy with that.

First, thanks goes out to Skeptic Overlord for these terrific surveys. 'ATS' always provides us with various forms of information, which presents new insights on the world around us. Thank you.

Originally posted by Jomina
As someone that runs such sites, myself, I am very aware of the issues, and can testify that the majority of income from these means generally comes from Google Adsense and other like-advertising situations.

We, as the smaller guys, have little means to be able to compete against big websites, which, in the end, are where the majority of advertisers go to place their ads.

It can be an ugly situation :|

Second, as someone who has worked on informational-media sites, I know for a fact that there are other means to obtaining advertising. Its not a question about limitation, but it is a question on how to capture larger clients. Skeptic Overload has a mess of information on his demographics, and all he needs to do is learn how to benefit from the data. Google AdSence is a good starting point, but the return rate for each click is chump change.

All you need is one freelance salesman who will work for commission, but he or she has to have a psychological understand of the site's demographic. When I worked as a graphic design sub-contractor, I was ticked off that my client didn't have an online salesman. Even though he had an offline sales force, the client didn't understand that you need at least one online salesman. He or she has to be someone who is looking to make a little cash. Not a full-time salesman. Not a part-time salesman.

College intern looking for a few dollars? Paid commission? Maybe a mother who wants to make a few dollars, but she doesn't have the time for a real part-time job? Some college students work internships without pay, so they can build up bragging rights for their resume. Grocery store bulletin boards always have people looking to make a few bucks. Maybe some student is looking for extra cash during the summer?

Sometimes you have to give a little, so you can accomplish your goals.

Originally posted by Section31
Google AdSence is a good starting point, but the return rate for each click is chump change.

ATS has been a Google "Premium Publisher" for more than 14 months. It's a status/rank that is relatively hard to obtain, and relies upon a range of factors -- reliability of quality content being the most important. It's better than "chump change," but still not enough on its own.

All you need is one freelance salesman who will work for commission

In today's world of dog-eat-dog media planning, that would never work. I've been on the other end -- managing an ad agency department that oversees both media planning and creative for serious online clients -- and without contacts at major advertisers and media planning agencies, there's no hope. Seriously.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Section31
Google AdSence is a good starting point, but the return rate for each click is chump change.

ATS has been a Google "Premium Publisher" for more than 14 months. It's a status/rank that is relatively hard to obtain, and relies upon a range of factors -- reliability of quality content being the most important. It's better than "chump change," but still not enough on its own.

Good point.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Section31
All you need is one freelance salesman who will work for commission

In today's world of dog-eat-dog media planning, that would never work. I've been on the other end -- managing an ad agency department that oversees both media planning and creative for serious online clients -- and without contacts at major advertisers and media planning agencies, there's no hope. Seriously.

Have you tried networking? Was it too time consuming and expensive?

Originally posted by pikappa
I did not know about this survey until now... so ATS is actively promoting the ability of websites to track our browsing habits, huh? Good to know where you guys stand on this.

What?

No. What they are trying to do, is keep the tracking cookies anonymous... AFAIK.

I have no problem with tracking cookies if it has no way to physically be bound to my person. The second you do that, you remove freedom. If it's tracking a general concensus, then it's a good metric to see how well your ads are doing ect... but if it tracks me down to me, down to my IP, down to the name on the account, and is extended an extra two years...

Well then, freedom is lost, as I lose my anonymity on the internet. No matter where I go, what I say, what name or account I use, if it's tracable back to me... then freedom to be anonymous is removed, and that is the crux of the debate, again insofar as I know.

Originally posted by Section31
First, thanks goes out to Skeptic Overlord for these terrific surveys. 'ATS' always provides us with various forms of information, which presents new insights on the world around us. Thank you.

Originally posted by Jomina
As someone that runs such sites, myself, I am very aware of the issues, and can testify that the majority of income from these means generally comes from Google Adsense and other like-advertising situations.

We, as the smaller guys, have little means to be able to compete against big websites, which, in the end, are where the majority of advertisers go to place their ads.

It can be an ugly situation :|

Second, as someone who has worked on informational-media sites, I know for a fact that there are other means to obtaining advertising. Its not a question about limitation, but it is a question on how to capture larger clients. Skeptic Overload has a mess of information on his demographics, and all he needs to do is learn how to benefit from the data. Google AdSence is a good starting point, but the return rate for each click is chump change.

All you need is one freelance salesman who will work for commission, but he or she has to have a psychological understand of the site's demographic. When I worked as a graphic design sub-contractor, I was ticked off that my client didn't have an online salesman. Even though he had an offline sales force, the client didn't understand that you need at least one online salesman. He or she has to be someone who is looking to make a little cash. Not a full-time salesman. Not a part-time salesman.

College intern looking for a few dollars? Paid commission? Maybe a mother who wants to make a few dollars, but she doesn't have the time for a real part-time job? Some college students work internships without pay, so they can build up bragging rights for their resume. Grocery store bulletin boards always have people looking to make a few bucks. Maybe some student is looking for extra cash during the summer?

Sometimes you have to give a little, so you can accomplish your goals.

edit on 5/21/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

I think what you state is represented in the polls. The people who say Agree, and not Strongly Agree, agree that there are other means of securing advertisment for your page.

The problem lies with practicality. Just because one person is capable of creating a network map with potential weight, doesn't mean that every starting website will obtain a network map that works with the same efficiency.

It's a luck basis. You have to be fortunate enough to end up meeting the right people, or devising a scheme that's not been thought of before... etc.

It's not saying there isn't alternatives, but what it is saying, is there is a lack of strong alternatives... which is a big problem, since there is essentially a large demand.

You have to see the macro of this.

Originally posted by evilod
I've never understood people's paranoia over online privacy as it pertains to cookies and tracking. But as someone who works on the digital side of a major media company, I am very familiar with the concepts of action tracking, cookies, and such, and it ultimately comes down to trying to deliver ads that are as relevant as possible to the individual user, because that is what is going to make money for the site. This is true for big and small companies. Note that this is a perfectly legitimate business practice: a company provides a service to the consumer, free of charge, in exchange for the opportunity to track the consumer's usage of that service so that the company might effectively market products that are most relevant to the consumer. Tracking users' behaviors (which pages they visit, what they searched for, etc) does not mean somebody somewhere is personally monitoring you. (Unless, say, the government is spying on you, and the court orders the website to turn over the information they have collected in order to somehow use it against you. But that is a completely different issue.)

I guess I'm just curious, what is it that people think companies are going to do with the type of information that is being collected that will be bad for the user?

I understand people's concern over keeping private certain sensitive personal info that the user has given to a company, such as when you purchase a product and you must provide your name, address, etc (truly personal and sensitive data). But that is distinctly different than what this survey/legislation is dealing with, as far as I can tell. Perhaps people confuse the two concepts (anonymous vs personally identifiable data), as both are associated with the term "online privacy". But perhaps certain corporate interests intentionally try to muddy the two concepts together (i.e. cookies and tracking = compromising your personal information) in order to, as the survey suggests, rally support for legislation that could ultimately bring about the demise of smaller sites to benefit those same larger corporate interests.

I'm going to just focus on one piece of this for a second.....

Note that this is a perfectly legitimate business practice: a company provides a service to the consumer, free of charge, in exchange for the opportunity to track the consumer's usage of that service so that the company might effectively market products that are most relevant to the consumer.

UHHHHMMMMMM. Wrong. It's not legitimate business practice, because the consumer has no choice in the matter.

If a consumer wants information from ATS, he isn't signing up to participate in an advertisment ring. He's signing up to a service that allows him to talk to other likeminded individuals about topics that concerns him. Not signing up to the advertisers to allow them to market to you accordingly.

This is the problem with Marketing. The companies want it, but the people don't. We understand it's a must in business, but then advertisments should be allowed to be avoided. I.E. T.V. is a broad general ad, not a specific target on any individual.

If you were to target an individual, based on intelligence collected unknowingly of the advertisee... then you are basically manipulating/brainwashing, using your tools of intelligence to coax that person to purchase your product.

This goes about 25 steps passed the line of acceptible business practices. I understand it's every marketing firms dream, because it would make them a crap load of money, but in the end, it's practice is down right criminal.

My dad is an AC Sales Man. Yet it's against the law for him to use the evident build up of mold in your house to sell you a U.V. light that kills mold. Because it's manipulation... which is seen as a business scam.

Every house has mold in florida. There is a mold threshold, and without informing the person that there is a certain parts per million quotia that is healthy and deemed acceptible for healthy living standards.

So, here is a tactic that they used to use, which made this into state law.

AC Sales man would enter the house, get intel from walking around the house and asking people questions that don't pertain to your job... like "What do you do for a living?" If they say something like, I'm a health specialist, you know if you were to target mold, knowing they don't know about mold, that they would buy your U.V. Light, even though they DO NOT NEED IT, because you scared them into thinking they were living in something they aren't.

This is the EXACT same thing they are trying to do on the internet. Datamine, track that data to a physical person, so they can tailor their ads in such a way that it will convince you that you need that product... even though you don't.

They are data mining for intelligence to tailor sales pitches to exploit weeknesses in human psychology in order to make money.

You need to understand, this is NOT acceptible, and is already illegal in many states (Florida is one of them) for Real Life IN person Meetings with salesmen.

So why should it be legal on the internet, where they can data mine you for up to 5 years, and gain a WHOLE lot more information on your living practices to develop a pitch that is nearly 100% garaunteed to work on you.

It's social engineering, and should be illegal everywhere.

It's one thing to come up with a good idea that will net you money. It's quite another to see the affects of such practices.

The affects of such practices are SOOOO FLAGRANTLY ABUSE. It's a Con, dreamt up and taught to other marketing interns as the future of marketing... yet they sell it like they sell anything else... like a salesmen, they focus on the good it does, without ever indicating how it could be used maliciously.

And it WILL be used maliciously by anyone who realizes it benefits their wallet to do so.

reply to post by Laokin


I've come up with a better way to explain this, so excuse the back to back post.


What is an ethical salesman, vs, an unethical salesman?

A "Car Salesman," isn't a salesman at all. When some one wants to buy a car, they go to a car lot. So the sale is already garaunteed. The sales persons job is to show the cars, and allow the person to judge which features they like on which cars.

A car salesman doesn't do anything, they just show you the MFG's bullet points on each car, and they work out how to get you into one. They don't have to convince you that you need one, because if you didn't... you wouldn't be at a car lot.

That is an example of an Ethical sales person... Another one, is a sales rep at a store like best buy. If you go in looking for a TV.... the sale is already there. It's their job to make sure they can make it affordable for you, it's also their job to show you the differences between models.

Nothing else.

(This doesn't mean you can't have unethical sales people at these venues, just one example of unethical sales at Best Buy, is when you come in for like a music CD and walk out with a 2,000$ television you don't need. They target you, ask you questions... find out the type of person you are, say a gamer, or a graphic artist, then they proceed to use that information against you, acting like they know your hobby or profession, in attempts to convince you that it will be a helpful purchase, that ultimately benefits you. When it won't.)


An unethical sales person uses tactics that target you. They data mine for information that they can use against you to convince you that you need the more expensive version which ultimately benefits them by adding more funds to their wallet.

They use phishing scams to find out personality tropes, and to target those in order to convince you that you need something that you don't.

This is NOT acceptible business practice. Also, anybody who is educated about sales, will never buy something from any sales person that employs these tactics.

An example, door to door sales people. We'll use, Kirby Vacuumes as our example here. They knock on your door, offer you a free steam clean of any amount of rooms that you will accept to. They start usually by saying 3 rooms. The more rooms equates to more time in your house... (BTW, I worked selling Kirby Vacuumes, I quit because it's unethical.)

The more time they have to be in your house, the more they can prod for information. They try to find out what you do and don't like about using the machines you already have... then they make false promises of their machine, using tests concocted by kirby that cannot be used on conventional vacuums to prove to you that their vacuum works better.

In short, it doesn't. Any $150-$300 Vacuum is going to knock the pants off your Kirby.

I was in a house, and we were talking to this old lady. She loved wine, once we found out she loves wine, my sales associate preported she should bust out the wine and poor us all a glass... We Drank ours extremely slow, and talked to her about everything from what schools she was going to, to her husband, to her experiences of WW2, to her kids.. all the while pretending to steam clean the room (which we didn't even start yet, to buy more time in the house) when she finished, she poored another, and another, and another... till she got trashed.

My associate, then asked her if she liked massages ... They teach you how to use a dirty ass vacuum attatchment to give some one a scalp massage. We use the same machine all day, in everyones house. We advertise the model that we use as, never before been used. They are filthy machines, cleaned externally.

He then uses the attatchment for cleaning your drain lines in your sink (which is also a semi scam) on her head. When we used it to blow out some ones kitchen sink the house before.

So, run down is. We found out she was succeptible to alcohol, coaxed her into drinking, talked to her for like 4 hours, made her think we were her new besties... gave her a message on her scalp with a dirty ass attatchment, then convinced her using phonie tests that our vacuum was better than her current one... And sold a unit for $2300. The base price on a Kirby is 1300, and can go as low as $600. We sold it for $2300, to a women we knew couldn't afford it, using questionable practices by data mining her on the spot for over 4 hours.

You want to essentially give them 5+ years of data to do the same thing we did in 4 hours in that home. It's unethical, it's illegal in most states already, yet they want to give free reign on the internet to more dubious and less trusted sales people.

How is this considered an acceptible business practice?

It's not. It's abuse. It's over the line. It's Illegal for sales reps in florida, (the kirby place I worked for was called American Eagle Corp. and was indicted numerous times, there is even videos on youtube of interviews with the boss, who TRAINED ME to do these things, claiming he has no idea it's going on.) Yet, you propose, it's totally acceptible business practice?

DEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP.

P.S.

www.youtube.com...

This is a video with John Joyce, the guy I used to work for.... The guy who taught me these practices. He openly endorses ripping off old people. They actually have a "Golden Ager" Policy, to protect old woman from scammers, yet -- nobody in the building was aware of this policy. It was concealed from all the employee's by order from Kirby.

They have this policy for plausable deniability, because they have been indicted so many times for ripping people off.

I worked there when this happened. And yes, she was denied the refund. Only once the news go involved did they return the lady her money.

It's a total scam.

If data mining didn't aid in concocted bogus sales pitches, then people wouldn't use it. As it stands, year after year after year, major companies purchase your personal "private" information from all sorts willing to sell it. They do this, because they make more money off the scam then it costs for the data.

It's really, really, really, incredibly simple.

If you propose the data doesn't help forge fraudulent sales pitches... then I have to ask to you, how does the data work then?

What do they get out of knowing what I do for a living? Clearly, so they can target me with some product that I don't need, that they advertise will improve my productivity.... It also exposes your weaknesses to a certain pitch, allowing them to tailor one specifically to you. Which they don't even lie about, they openly admit that is what they are doing. That's the ONLY practical use of Data Mining for advertisers.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


5 adds on the hompage isnt bad. there are no adds on the Repy/page. The only adds i get mad at are the big pop ups with the tiny x's & the adds that run between almost every video on you tube.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Well... You know My solution... Get rid of the need for money. Release the plenum energy extraction methods. .

Can you direct me to a real-life case in which your method has been implemented to sustain a small or mid-sized website or company?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Well... You know My solution... Get rid of the need for money. Release the plenum energy extraction methods. .

Can you direct me to a real-life case in which your method has been implemented to sustain a small or mid-sized website or company?

Of course not. Sky, I KNOW of technology pulled into black ops. Electrogravitics. Overunity, along with antigravity, was manifest with that tech. That is why these methods must be released.

My thread, "Who are "They,"" describes how I know. It is linked in My sig.

And meanwhile, it is suppressed.

I never both anything via internet ads, I never take them serious. It annoys me on the moment I see them.

Add an donate button, put down what the site needs in money. People are good around here.
If this site was short 1dollar I would donate it if you let us see what this site needs. Ads for me don't work, as I don't buy anything but the primary things

The retained data is Not anonymous.
why do you think the FBI keep getting
information from google and other from them?
So the FBI can see ever thing you have been doing.
the FBI and all the other letters
Can Not track you.
so they use company’s like google to do all the work.
I can not believe so few know this.
Look Links?
Spotlight on Secret F.B.I. Subpoenas
WikiLeaks demands Google and Facebook unseal US
Secret FBI subpoena demanding IP Addresses of all visitors to Indymedia.us
it mus be true. I have links