Yes on a scale of evil, Facebook tops just about any advertising agency known for sheer bad cookie behaviour.
As a grumpy old man, I find Freedom From Facebook liberating, even if I miss out on hearing about all the cool parties.
Yup... but i use 1blocker - gets rid fo ads and facebook widgets that track you amongst other cruft....
"Facebook knows just about everything you do on the Internet. Any site that has a “Like” or “Share” button on it is sending your browsing behavior back to Facebook. They’ve been doing this since 2010."
Sounds like an appropriate response from the one-sided and very-heavy-handed approach from the ad industry...
While I don't mind ads per se, I find no justificative for the tracking side... They say it is for better ads, but all information I volunteered from my Google searches, Facebook page, etc., didn't get me any remotely interesting or worthwhile ads. Ever! So how much a difference tracking could make.
Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days.
You really think Amazon is going to walk away from Apple? Remember Flash, and all the dire warnings?
I feel real bad for the ad industry. They may not me able to send me all the crap I never wanted in the first place.
While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free". I don't think these Safari limitations will destroy the model we shouldn't knock it too much unless you want paywalls everywhere. The advertisers and the ad networks may suck but this is how the creators get paid.
I was was a fan of Techpinions but as a niche site they decided to put up a paywall rather than rely on ads. $10 a month is to much for casual interest for one website for me but I assume it is working for them.
It is just ignorant of the underlying business model of the web to wish for an ad-blocked world.
My, are the only valid ads those that come from tracking? I think not. They just pay better. The spurious argument reminds me when cable TV was going to be as free because you paid for it. Ha! Fool me twice..,
The ads simply piss me off. If advertisers think their advertisements have value to me, they are wrong.
You will still get the same number and placement of ads, possibly more since they will be less effective per unit ad. They will just now be about more random things or things you have no interest in rather than things you have shown an interest in at some point.
The ads simply piss me off. If advertisers think their advertisements have value to me, they are wrong.
You will still get the same number and placement of ads, possibly more since they will be less effective per unit ad. They will just now be about more random things or things you have no interest in rather than things you have shown an interest in at some point.
Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days.
If sites did that Apple could fight back by just changing the user agent Safari reports to the site and report itself as Chrome.
Maybe some huge sites like Amazon could get away with it but do you really think websites are going to want to make that argument to the general public? "We're blocking your browser because they're preventing us from tracking you."
Apple would do no such thing, ever. And yes, I do believe websites would do whatever is needed to protect their advertising incomes. Follow the money. What would you be willing to pay for access to AppleInsider if they couldn't make anything off of ad clicks because of blocking or no more tracking?
Careful with the "screw you, ad industry" comments. Remember that Spotify just announced cessation of support for Safari. What if major sites (Amazon for example) start rejecting the Safari browser and force you to use something else to access their sites? These advertising companies aren't going to take this laying down. They will fight back and this is just the first salvo. You think people will just not visit retail sites that reject Safari? Hell no, people will change browsers to get to their favorite sites, just like they did in the old Microsoft hegemony days.
If sites did that Apple could fight back by just changing the user agent Safari reports to the site and report itself as Chrome.
Maybe some huge sites like Amazon could get away with it but do you really think websites are going to want to make that argument to the general public? "We're blocking your browser because they're preventing us from tracking you."
Apple would do no such thing, ever. And yes, I do believe websites would do whatever is needed to protect their advertising incomes. Follow the money. What would you be willing to pay for access to AppleInsider if they couldn't make anything off of ad clicks because of blocking or no more tracking?
Sites have a right to offer ads and/or subscriptions for me to view their content. That is it. They do not have the right to track me all over the internet to learn my likes and dislikes anymore than a store clerk has the right to follow me around the store eavesdropping on my conversations or looking over my shoulder to read my texts to "enable them to better offer me relevant items I may be interested in."
This just in, burglars complain that installing bars and heavy duty locks prevent them from accessing people's homes.
Burglars United president Ima Pillock stated that these measures are bad for consumers because "how else can they get new expensive stuff through insurance payouts if we can't break in and steal their existing stuff?"
What is wrong with cookie free ads? Why the hell do they need to install a cookie on my browser?
Why not revert back to the old days of generic ads that got distributed to everyone? Hell, are TV ads actually based on consumers? No, so why the hell can't web ads be the same? At best they should only be able to read my internet facing IP Address and send me ads based on my country or even my town but that's it and should be all.
Some of the posters here are confusing ad blocking with tracking blocking. Two entirely different things. Tracking done without your knowledge and consent is evil.
While as a consumer I agree and find it uber creepy (and utterly stupid) that I get adds all over the web for things I've already searched for, remember, this is what keeps the internet "free".
Not for nothing, but my MSO (ISP) does give me free internet access, I have to pay for it. The same also goes for my cellular connection. That shit isn't free either.
So so the concept that the internet is free and advertising is what allows it to be free is bullshit. When a website like AI, give your free access, it's because it's relying on the advertising to make up for the free access, to that their site only.
Amazon on the other hand, has a free account and a pay for account. If I have a non prime account advertise the shit out of me. But if I have a prime account, that should not happen. All searches should be anonymous.
Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more.
Do-the-right-thing my ass....
Google isn't complaining. On the contrary they agree that ads have gotten out of hand and take steps themselves to "encourage" websites to avoid many of the worst types. If I'm not mistaken it was Google who encouraged Apple to enable this in Safari.
Is that straight from your overlords or your own opinion?
Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more.
Do-the-right-thing my ass....
Google isn't complaining. On the contrary they agree that ads have gotten out of hand and take steps themselves to "encourage" websites to avoid many of the worst types. If I'm not mistaken it was Google who encouraged Apple to enable this in Safari.
No, it is not complaining. In fact it is fully onboard with the decision to cut ads, and there is no conflict of interest here. None...
don't they have better targets to go after? like ad block plus? surely Safari's 3%-4% marketshare isn't going to affect them as much as adblock plus or other privacy plugins.
Are you kidding? Ad Block Plus is a scam. They are in bed with advertisers and charge fees to companies like Facebook and Google in order to allow their ads through their filters. And that's not to mention all the bloat in ABP.
Looks like Apple has kicked Google in the balls once more.
Do-the-right-thing my ass....
Google isn't complaining. On the contrary they agree that ads have gotten out of hand and take steps themselves to "encourage" websites to avoid many of the worst types. If I'm not mistaken it was Google who encouraged Apple to enable this in Safari.
I don’t think so. Source?
If i’m not mistaken it was Google who got fined $22.5MM by the government for circumventing Safari users’ third-party-cookies setting. I don’t think they championed this tracking blocking at all.
Well I think you should check for yourself then and you may learn some things you weren't aware of. Don't lake my word for it. Hint: Google themselves have already announced they'll be rolling out Chrome's default blocking of the most annoying ad types within just a few more months, giving websites an opportunity to clean themselves up before Google begins blocking.
... And no the reason you stated was not why Google was fined by the FTC. Tracking was fine and still is, lots of companies currently ignore "Do Not Track". That's a failed effort. It was the improper advice Google gave Safari users regarding opt-out that the FTC took issue with, as they should have.
1) you're confusing ad blocking with tracking. or just pretending not to know the difference. google is participating in the existing browser plugin trend of blocking obtrusive ads, but ive seen nothing that indicates they encouraged apple to implement this cross domain tracking blocker as you claim. Again, source? until you link otherwise i'll just assume it's more GoogleGuy FUD. Grade A stuff.
2) The reason I stated is exactly why google was levied with the largest fine in FTF history. Google insisted on placing tracking cookies even while indicating they weren't. I never mentioned DNT but rather third-party cookies. Regardless, you're splitting hairs because for whatever reason your core ego is tied to the image of google. Maybe your brother works there, who knows. Who cares. They violated consumer privacy, were found guilty, and paid the fine. It hurts, I know.
Comments
"Facebook knows just about everything you do on the Internet. Any site that has a “Like” or “Share” button on it is sending your browsing behavior back to Facebook. They’ve been doing this since 2010."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nate-hanson/how-to-stop-facebook-from_b_8160400.html
Put just as simply, machine-driven tracking without opt-out does not represent user choice; it represents advertiser industry choice.
Burglars United president Ima Pillock stated that these measures are bad for consumers because "how else can they get new expensive stuff through insurance payouts if we can't break in and steal their existing stuff?"
Why not revert back to the old days of generic ads that got distributed to everyone? Hell, are TV ads actually based on consumers? No, so why the hell can't web ads be the same? At best they should only be able to read my internet facing IP Address and send me ads based on my country or even my town but that's it and should be all.
So so the concept that the internet is free and advertising is what allows it to be free is bullshit. When a website like AI, give your free access, it's because it's relying on the advertising to make up for the free access, to that their site only.
Amazon on the other hand, has a free account and a pay for account. If I have a non prime account advertise the shit out of me. But if I have a prime account, that should not happen. All searches should be anonymous.
What you want is uBlock Origin.
2) The reason I stated is exactly why google was levied with the largest fine in FTF history. Google insisted on placing tracking cookies even while indicating they weren't. I never mentioned DNT but rather third-party cookies. Regardless, you're splitting hairs because for whatever reason your core ego is tied to the image of google. Maybe your brother works there, who knows. Who cares. They violated consumer privacy, were found guilty, and paid the fine. It hurts, I know.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented