Linked by David Adams on Fri 19th Mar 2010 21:07 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Online advertising has been a hot topic for the past week or so, with Ars Technica trying out an interesting, somewhat desperate experiment wherein they blocked access to their content for people using Adblock. Of course, if this were to become some kind of movement among publishers, it would probably just spark a technological cat-and-mouse game that would surely be reminiscent of DRM cracking or iPhone jailbreaking. But in their post-mortem, Ars states that it was a worthwhile awareness campaign, and I hope that's true. But I thought it would be a good idea to try to bring the collective OSNews brainpower together and crowdsource the idea of how to raise money for a web site in an age where advertising is increasingly un-viable.
Thread beginning with comment 414440
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Random replies
by Kroc on Sat 20th Mar 2010 10:36 UTC in reply to "Random replies"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

However, when it comes to ads, it's suddenly a problem?


Because ad agencies join the dots. And let's not get into Flash cookies.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Random replies
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 20th Mar 2010 10:47 in reply to "RE: Random replies"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Because ad agencies join the dots.


What do you mean? I don't get this saying. All I know is that it's apparantly okay to trust random Google links and the random stuff we (and any other site) links to - but not ad agencies, which are, in fact, chosen by us too - just like the sites we link to. It's inconsistent.

And let's not get into Flash cookies.


Flash has nothing to do with ads. I block Flash too because Flash in and of itself is an inherent danger and a CPU hog. There's nothing inherently wrong with JS, just that it might possibly be used to attack your computer.

At which point I ask you the same question: what makes you trust Google, Wikipedia (random links inserted by total strangers!), OSNews, and every other site and the JS they link to - but not the ads we run? It is highly inconsistent.

Again - you have every right to, but I still believe it to be a reason of convenience.

Edited 2010-03-20 10:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Random replies
by Kroc on Sat 20th Mar 2010 11:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Random replies"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

http://www.imasuper.com/66/technology/flash-cookies-the-silent-priv...

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/you-deleted-your-cookies-thi...

The problem, is that with ad impressions across multiple sites, they can follow you ever so closely. In the real world, it would be akin to allowing advertisers to use CCTV to check the where and when everybody goes so that they could be targeted with ads.

You're free of course to not be bothered by that, most people are not bothered about what advertisers do, or what information they give out. I just choose to utilise the ability I have to render and interpret the content that gets delivered to my computer how I please, _for a pleasant viewing experience_.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Random replies
by AdamW on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 15:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Random replies"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, why are you assuming everyone trusts random Google links? I certainly don't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Random replies
by AdamW on Tue 23rd Mar 2010 15:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Random replies"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

oh, and you also seem unaware that noscript's default configuration blocks *all* javascript. Including js from the host of the site. Not just third-party js. If you want to see the js from the host, you have to whitelist it.

Reply Parent Score: 2