PCWorld Forums: 'do Not Track' Trend Draws Advertisers' Ire - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for 'Do Not Track' Trend Draws Advertisers' Ire here

What about how Safari blocks 3rd party cookies by default?

And anyway, note to advertisers: Don’t track me, bro. I don't trust you do not track me via a DHT header, so I manually block the trackers and ads. (if you don't track me and make your ads annoying, I'd allow them)

I'm getting the impression Microsoft can't do anything without someone complaining.

If Apple does this to Safari (not sure, maybe they already do), expect high praises from everyone.

Simple enough:

As long as tracking is 'allowed', put up a popup that says "You are letting people SPY ON YOU. Would you like some privacy? [YES] [NO, I like getting bum raped by Big Brother]"

There, 100% compliant. Not 'on' by default.

'Do Not Track' Trend Draws Advertisers' Ire...

*World's smallest violin is heard playing.

Go to Abine.com and download their free ad blocker. It's a simple install, no muss no fuss. When I query it, it shows about 78,000+ ads blocked over the last few months.

Greywoof, on 10 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Forgot to say that it's blocks tracking.

Regrettably, websites play a crucial role in bolstering advertisers' push for ever more aggressive and invasive ads. Here's how it works:

If Site A refuses to run some obnoxious, intrusive ad or tracking method that Site B (in the same field) agrees to run, advertisers will tell Site A that they simply won't run ads on Site A any more, because the return on investment at Site B "is so much better." So then the business execs at Site A will cave in because, otherwise, "Site B will kill us by sucking up all the ad dollars from our [advertising] clients." Ultimately, this cycle of behavior produces a race to the bottom, as far as site visitors' experience is concerned.

I'm aware of of three rather obvious strategies that might reverse this trend (at least when the websites involved produce content that site visitors are interested in seeing):

1. Sites could stop depending solely on ads for revenue, and instead charge visitors for access to their content. This approach hasn't worked terribly well on the Web so far because most people would rather endure (or block) ads and cookies than pay up-front for content they can find for free elsewhere. But if the situation at websites were to get significantly worse, that preference might change.

2. Sites could adopt voluntary standards under which they imposed limits on the types of ads and tracking they would accept. Unfortunately, for this approach to work, companies would have to adopt a united front toward advertisers in telling them that some advertising and tracking techniques are unacceptable--and each company would have to turn down a succession of guys who were waving dollars in their face.

3. The government could step in and establish regulations that limit the kinds of tactics advertisers could use on websites. This would actually help websites (insofar as they care about being pleasant places for people to visit) by making the decision not to go along with whatever new scheme advertisers came up with for "engaging with" visitors mandatory rather than voluntary. They could tell advertisers "We'd love to run your quasi-malware persistent cookie and your browser-hijacking ads, but the mean old government won't let us."

And realistically, advertisers wouldn't face ruin. They might see their success metrics drop somewhat in the short term, but they also might find themselves doing business on a much healthier and more popular Internet.

In a world without guns and explosives, people fight with swords, spears, arrows, and boulders. Advertisers who have to rely on primitive forms of advertising will adapt to those forms--especially if that's the only way they can gain access to millions of potential consumers. The decisive factor isn't the level of technology; it's the levelness of the playing field.

As Dan Tynan observes, advertisers aren't going to stop following the millions of consumers who congregate online--even if they're forced to appeal to them with static banner ads and no cookies at all. And a less obnoxious Internet might prevent advertisers from discouraging website traffic with toxic policies that are driven by extremely short-sighted notions of maximizing profit.

Greywoof, on 10 June 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I tried DNT+ in Firefox 2-3 months ago... yeah the panel says it blocked tons of trackers, but the thing that bugged me was that it left tons of cookies behind. I think some were 'opt out' but many weren't. As I understand it, sites are under no obligation to opt out, so you will still be tracked. I might be wrong there. I have Ghostery enabled, but I don't know if that's the same kind of deal re cookies.

porcupins, on 10 June 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Really? Can you name anything Apple have ever done that's ever drawn high praises from everyone?

crosswordbob, on 10 June 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

I can't, because, you know... when you're posting your opinion on the internet, you don't owe anyone an explanation.

Oh, well...

This post has been edited by porcupins: 10 June 2012 - 07:21 PM

porcupins, on 10 June 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'd never suggest you owe me or anyone else an explanation for your opinion. I was merely pointing out how extraordinarily daft it was.

This post has been edited by crosswordbob: 10 June 2012 - 07:50 PM

LiveBrianD, on 10 June 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Yeah, right. So if you are blocking ads, how do you know they have been made "not annoying" (whatever that means and whichever is obviously completely subjective)? The answer is: you don't. You're only looking for excuses and not pushing the ad industry to actually come up with better ways to advertise. You'd only do that if you'd not block no ads at all, and would simply not visit sites you think are displaying annoying ads.

crosswordbob, on 10 June 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

You could have said "That was daft". I would appreciated the directness.
Let me do it for you. "That was daft". There.
Still, back to my point- Apple would have gotten away with it.

Ciao.

This post has been edited by porcupins: 10 June 2012 - 08:33 PM

@Yargs I've noticed that on a lot of sites, including pcworld's, that if I disable adobe flash, I get static ads. (yes!) Of course, that also breaks a few video sites (not very many though). If there were a way for me to force the static ads WITH flash enabled, I would. Since I can't, I block ads. It's that simple. (and no, flashblock doesn't work because websites see that I have flash and try to load flash ads, which of course then get blocked)

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 10 June 2012 - 09:14 PM

LiveBrianD, on 10 June 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Are you using OS X? Safari defaults as 'Block Cookies: Never'... I'm pretty sure the Third Party cookies are left unchecked by default along with that. So, non-techies, who are usually uniformed about digital cookies, will not see that in the Privacy panel the choices are Never, Always, and From Third Parties and Advertisers.

Btw, in Firefox, as soon as I click to allow cookies, the button for Third Parties comes on by default forcing me to unclick that.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 10 June 2012 - 09:21 PM

porcupins, on 10 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

OK, then, allow me to be direct. No, they wouldn't. Pretty much everything Apple does draws wide-spread criticism. Why would this be different?

artzy65, on 10 June 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

I recall that, when I used Safari on a Mac once, the 3rd party cookies option was, by default, checked.

porcupins, on 10 June 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Seriously? You go the MS fanboy route on this when they are basically screwing consumers by bowing down to ad agencies?

And if Apple does the same thing you can bet your money on the people having a fit about it just like with Microsoft...

Bottom line - ads and tracking are the cost for all the 'free' stuff on the web (that's pretty much google's business model.)

No ads = no free stuff