Once again, a headline that applies to many things.

[theweaselking]

Parasitic whiners complain that they're unable to install enough malware on victims to make a profit via malware-extortion.

Comments

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

I'm sure ad-blocking companies could not have whitelisting, if advertisers prefer.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The ad vendors screamed and moaned to get Adblock Plus to put in an "acceptable ads" whitelist, and now they whine that the existence of the list is extortionate.

It's almost like they're arguing in bad faith. Who could possibly have anticipated THAT.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

It's truly shocking, isn't it?

[frith]

This subject will be on The Sunday Edition on CBC radio next hour. What that article completely misses is that I don't want to see targeted ads, I don't trust targeted ads to not be malware clickbait, ads slow down load time a lot, many ads crash my browser, ads interrupt livestreams I watch and ads that load slowly cause the content I want to see to fail (image and video). It makes it look like adblock users are simply pirates looking for a free ride.

Sites such as DeviantArt whine about adblockers (recently with an overlay that blocked half the screen) but there is no discussion or negotiation offered. So they can listen to my adblocker instead.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It also is blatantly dishonest about how whitelisting of "acceptable ads" work, calling it a fee to the adblocker to get your ads whitelisted. No, in fact, that's not true AT ALL. First, your ads must meet the "acceptable ads" criteria, which damn close to 0% of ads do. Second, you must submit your ads for whitelisting, and if they are "acceptable", they get whitelisted. The fee only shows up when your business is ONLY or ALMOST ONLY "putting ads on web pages" - if you're not in the business of selling a product, you're in the business of selling ads for other people's products, you pay the nuisance fee, because you're a nuisance, the earth would be a better place without you, and it's FAR more likely you're going to break the rules. Because you're an advertiser: you're by definition a dishonest actor operating in bad faith.

[frith]

Pretty hasty and light reporting on the "White Listing" thing. I expect better from the CBC.

[frith]

Well, the podcast for that is here and it's a bit longer (at 36 minutes) than the print article. It does miss a few points and it's vague on others, such as which sites are paying which ad blockers to be whitelisted, and how did we go from a web with a "free" backbone and user paid ISP access to a web that will collapse without ad revenue despite user paid ISP access and a "free" backbone.

I did not see an anonymous feedback forum for The Sunday Edition.

If that podcast reflects the mindcast of the online advertising industry, they're still drinking the wrong Coolaid. I don't care how specific the ads can get, I do not want to be tracked, profiled and targeted. It's stalking and it's creepy and intrusive. Vague talk about 'oh, we should make lighter ads' when you see how many advertisers (and web designers!) are hooked on bloat, is just a load of hogwash.

The publishing industry and for-profit content providers get absolutely no sympathy from me if they rely on using third party clearinghouse ad providers for revenue. They should do it themselves, as it is done in dead-tree format -- ads that go with the content, not ads that stalk readers.

There was no word in the podcast on if online targeted advertising is an investment bubble.

Now, why would I click on a 'blue triangle' when I've been burned, tracked and targeted by ads so many times before? Really, this advertising model is going to have to crash and burn, hard, before it gets better.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

This makes me think about the movie Minority Report, where the main character gets new eyes to fool optical scanners, but then the eyeball scanners know EVERYONE, so his real world ads are targeted to the prior owner of the eyeballs.