Ad Firms Hit Hard by Apple's Intelligent Tracking Prevention Feature in Safari

[JGRE]

People want free content with no ads. That's not how it works. I want to see if people are so happy when half the internet is paywall (pay to view) content...

Which other half, it is 90% commerce nowadays anyways. People are sick and tired of these ads: on TV, on the radio, in the bus on the street on the internet in the train in the shop, it is simply everywhere trying to impact your daily life.
I love this future and combine it with add-block and ghostery, all happy.

On my work computer, I don't have this and it is just amazing to see the different with a web with and without these intrusions.

 

[JackieInCo]

Which other half, it is 90% commerce nowadays anyways. People are sick and tired of these ads: on TV, on the radio, in the bus on the street on the internet in the train in the shop, it is simply everywhere trying to impact your daily life.
I love this future and combine it with add-block and ghostery, all happy.

On my work computer, I don't have this and it is just amazing to see the different with a web with and without these intrusions.

I use Adblock Plus to block ALL ads on my computers PLUS I like it's ability to cut out any section of a page that I just don't want to see. On Facebook, I cut out the entire right column and only left the trends block so I don't see any ads at all there, the whole section is just gone, forever.

On forums where every other post is followed by an ad, I simply cut out that section and no more ads.

You just simply click the block element function in ABP and hover your mouse over the section that you want to cut out and then click when the area is highlighted yellow. People need to become familiar with this function in ABP because it's so easy to make a website become what you want to see and not what the designer wants you to see which is ads everywhere.

 

[Tech198]

One company always rises to the top to cause havoc for others. we all wanna make a living.. but you can't do that when everyone is trying to outwit each other.

"Ad company Criteo says that it is working to circumvent Intelligent Tracking Prevention"

lol.. I'm sure Apple will be happy to know this

 

[farmboy]

It's not about ads...it's about tracking. Showing an ad on a page is OK, showing ads--the special ad based on a site you visited--for weeks and weeks on end on every site you go to, just pisses everyone off. And those guys who make that possible deserve to get hammered.

 

[oldtime]

One company always rises to the top to cause havoc for others. we all wanna make a living.. but you can't do that when everyone is trying to outwit each other.

"Ad company Criteo says that it is working to circumvent Intelligent Tracking Prevention"

lol.. I'm sure Apple will be happy to know this

So many companies trying to out-scumbag each other.

 

[doctor-don]

GPS is OFF on my phone.
My personal privacy / freedom is NOT for sale.

 

[Wakey87433]

Somehow ad firms made money before they could track our every movement.

Maybe look into that Criteo.

The bigger problem are the sites though. Back in the day the ad revenue was next to nothing as the wrong people were seeing the ads and advertisers weren’t willing to pay decent rates for such poorly targeted ads and the click through rates were so poor. Targeting has made them more worthwhile.

Ad blockers are bad enough as people activate them and even if a site uses non intrusive ads people just never turn them off BUT if we go back and devalue the ads by blocking tracking on mass we are going to see sites getting real funding shortfalls. Ideally it would be offset by direct donations but sadly even if they use a site every day most people are too tight to drop even a few dollars a year.

That’s troublesome because sites need money to run and the web actually provides a lot of people with employment but there may not be the money to pay these people in the near future. We would see a situation where only a handful of firms control the information we see as only the biggest more established companies who own web properties will have the resources to fund their operation

 

[mwined]

Poor babies. :/

 

[triptolemus]

People want free content with no ads. That's not how it works. I want to see if people are so happy when half the internet is paywall (pay to view) content...

People having been proclaiming the End of the Internet As We Know It since modern ad blocking became a thing -- over 10 years ago. Yet here we are, internet doing just fine.

Remember back in the day when Cable TV promised no ads on their pay-to-view service? Where are we now with that?

As as been stated, it's not the ads, it's the ultra-intrusive privacy violations coupled with ubiquitous advertising that upset most people. Everything in moderation.

My personal solution is Pi-hole: https://pi-hole.net - network-wide ad blocking for every device.

 

[rafark]

wow people give me a break, that post of mine has been quoted like 25+ times.

 

[AFDoc]

Mine was off.... is that by default or?
[doublepost=1515635610][/doublepost]

wow people give me a break, that post of mine has been quoted like 25+ times.

You wrote it now you don't want to stand behind it?
[doublepost=1515637540][/doublepost]

This doesn't block ads. Everyone will see the exact same number of ads......

Thanks for the heads up... I assume most didn't know this info like I didn't.

 

[rafark]

You wrote it now you don't want to stand behind it?

When did I say such thing?

 

[jdawgnoonan]

It's not about ads...it's about tracking. Showing an ad on a page is OK, showing ads--the special ad based on a site you visited--for weeks and weeks on end on every site you go to, just pisses everyone off. And those guys who make that possible deserve to get hammered.

And the sites with those ads deserve to get punished by having decreased traffic or or by users choosing tools that make tracking very difficult.

 

[neversink]

Good. The degree to which people have been tracked has been out of control for a while now. I understand the importance of advertising, but the tracking and spying has gone too far.

Huh - the tracking and spying has gone too far?

Even a little is too much.

There should be absolutely no tracking and no spying! Period.

 

[rafark]

People having been proclaiming the End of the Internet As We Know It since modern ad blocking became a thing -- over 10 years ago. Yet here we are, internet doing just fine.

Remember back in the day when Cable TV promised no ads on their pay-to-view service? Where are we now with that?

As as been stated, it's not the ads, it's the ultra-intrusive privacy violations coupled with ubiquitous advertising that upset most people. Everything in moderation.

My personal solution is Pi-hole: https://pi-hole.net - network-wide ad blocking for every device.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like ads; but it's not about me. The websites I visit don't belong to me and as visitor I must agree with their policies, and that includes ad consumption. Without ads website owners can't pay their bills. You're basically stealing other people. I'm now motivated to build an adblocker blocker.

 

[triptolemus]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like ads; but it's not about me. The websites I visit don't belong to me and as visitor I must agree with their policies, and that includes ad consumption. Without ads website owners can't pay their bills. You're basically stealing other people. I'm now motivated to build an adblocker blocker.

The inherent problem with this logic is that I agreed to visit the website in question. I didn't agree to visit 25 ad servers and half a dozen trackers. I didn't agree to be tracked across the internet, have my privacy violated, or allow ad agencies to have a nearly complete profile of my browsing history. Websites using these practices are abusing trust, and are effectively stealing from me and every other user. There was no "must agree with their policies" to use the site. User agreements buried deep within the site do not count. They've already served up the unwanted scripts and tracking cookies before I've had a chance to decline.

The great thing about DNS ad blocking is that if the ads are served from the same domain as the content, they'll be displayed. Why do you think that doesn't happen? Why do you think websites don't put their tracking/advertising policies up as interstitial BEFORE they load the page and you are allowed to view the site? "By visiting this site, you agree to be tracked across the internet" doesn't sound like it would attract a fair amount of users does it?

Who are the real thieves in this equation? I'm fine with my ethics, and I sleep well at night. You do what's right for you.

 

[rafark]

The inherent problem with this logic is that I agreed to visit the website in question. I didn't agree to visit 25 ad servers and half a dozen trackers. I didn't agree to be tracked across the internet, have my privacy violated, or allow ad agencies to have a nearly complete profile of my browsing history. Websites using these practices are abusing trust, and are effectively stealing from me and every other user. There was no "must agree with their policies" to use the site. User agreements buried deep within the site do not count. They've already served up the unwanted scripts and tracking cookies before I've had a chance to decline.
.

Yes, yo do; all of that is part of the whole package when you visit a site. Most websites give you access to their content without charging you but that doesn't mean it's free or public domain. When you visit a site with ads the site gives you content for "free" in exchange of displaying some ads to you. It's an "I give you, you give me" relationship. When you block ads, you're getting their content for free without giving them anything in return. These websites are not charity and that to me is clearly stealing and nothing to be proud of.

They've already served up the unwanted scripts and tracking cookies before I've had a chance to decline.

You have the chance to decline, stop visiting the site.

The great thing about DNS ad blocking is that if the ads are served from the same domain as the content, they'll be displayed. Why do you think that doesn't happen? Why do you think websites don't put their tracking/advertising policies up as interstitial BEFORE they load the page and you are allowed to view the site? "By visiting this site, you agree to be tracked across the internet" doesn't sound like it would attract a fair amount of users does it?

Who are the real thieves in this equation? I'm fine with my ethics, and I sleep well at night. You do what's right for you

Don't know what you're talknig about here. Ads are not served from the same domain beacuse they are managed by a third party. Fancy web fonts? served by a thrid party. Social Features? served by a third party. Even images and other critical resources (even the whole page) are often times served by a third party to improve perfomance.

"By visiting this site, you agree to be tracked across the internet"

Yes, by visiting a site you're agreeing with their tos. Nobody is forcing you to visit a site, it's not a right, but a privilege. If you don't like it you can go to another one with the same content that doesn't display ads (good luck finding one), instead people decide to enjoy their free content while blocking their source of income. How are these business going to survive? That's not right. The NYT was loosing about 30 million a year before they decided to stop giving their content away and start charging people to access it. And that was the reason of my initial comment, all of this is driving us to a closed web, people don't seem to be aware of the long term consequences.

When you go to a store and you don't agree with its pricing scheme do you just walk away with the product without paying just because you don't agree with them? That's what people are doing when they block ads.

And the argument of tracking as the reason of ad blocking is naive at best. People have been trying to block ads since the very beginning, long before this "tracking" controversy.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, yo do; all of that is part of the whole package when you visit a site. Most websites give you access to their content without charging you but that doesn't mean it's free or public domain. When you visit a site with ads the site gives you content for "free" in exchange of displaying some ads to you. It's an "I give you, you give me" relationship. When you block ads, you're getting their content for free without giving them anything in return. These websites are not charity and that to me is clearly stealing and nothing to be proud of.



You have the chance to decline, stop visiting the site.



Don't know what you're talknig about here. Ads are not served from the same domain beacuse they are managed by a third party. Fancy web fonts? served by a thrid party. Social Features? served by a third party. Even images and other critical resources (even the whole page) are often times served by a third party to improve perfomance.



Yes, by visiting a site you're agreeing with their tos. Nobody is forcing you to visit a site, it's not a right, but a privilege. If you don't like it you can go to another one with the same content that doesn't display ads (good luck finding one), instead people decide to enjoy their free content while blocking their source of income. How are these business going to survive? That's not right. The NYT was loosing about 30 million a year before they decided to stop giving their content away and start charging people to access it. And that was the reason of my initial comment, all of this is driving us to a closed web, people don't seem to be aware of the long term consequences.

When you go to a store and you don't agree with its pricing scheme do you just walk away with the product without paying just because you don't agree with them? That's what people are doing when they block ads.

And the argument of tracking as the reason of ad blocking is naive at best. People have been trying to block ads since the very beginning, long before this "tracking" controversy.

Serving up ads is not the same as tracking. If a site offered me the option of opting out of its use in the tos because they were upfront about tracking, I would ban that site from my use. I’d go back to listening to the radio.

These sites are being nefarious and I applaud Apple’s intelligent use of technology to outwit other nefarious use of technology.

 

[IHelpId10t5]

Anyone tired of aggressive web content should consider simply using uMatrix with an initial configuration change to blocking JS in the global scope. Yes, it then takes a few minutes of time to configure for each new website visited but it’s well worth it to know that my browser is effectively in a default deny configuration when visiting any new site.

 

[triptolemus]

Ads are not served from the same domain beacuse they are managed by a third party. Fancy web fonts? served by a thrid party. Social Features? served by a third party.

Fonts served by a third party, usually Google, are not blocked. Otherwise, fonts are typically served from the same domain, and if they are blocked, they are replaced in the browser and life goes on. Social features are exactly the type of crap I block (*.facebook.com). And again, when sites serve their OWN ads, they are not blocked.

And the argument of tracking as the reason of ad blocking is naive at best. People have been trying to block ads since the very beginning, long before this "tracking" controversy.

People have been successfully blocking ads since the very beginning, and the tracking stuff started the moment ads started being served from third-party providers. It started immediately, right there and has been going ever since.

You have the chance to decline, stop visiting the site.

But the tracking cookies and other naughty bits have already been served. My no longer visiting the site does nothing to remove the tracking cookies.

I appreciate what you're saying, but you're not going to convince me. Currently, I have 824,252 domains blocked at DNS and that's the way it will stay.

 

[IHelpId10t5]

And again, when sites serve their OWN ads, they are not blocked

This. I would personally be fine with sites paying their bills by serving up advertising meeting some very simply rules:

1) Ads must be served up from the same (1st party) domain as the site you are visiting.
2) Ads must ONLY consists of static images (.PNG, .JPG, .SVG) -- no exceptions
3) Ads may NEVER include or be targeted by any scripting whatsoever (inline or event-based)
4) Ads MUST be marked up with a simple HTML5 <aside> container element, containing some type of standardized markup pattern.
5) Ads MUST contain a clear heading of "advertisement" and be visually styled to clearly set them apart from actual content.
6) Video or audio containing ads must only load a static poster image (PNG, .JPG, .SVG) that is hyperlinked to the video, requiring the user to click to opt-in to play the video.
7) Pop-overs or unders using scripting or CSS should NEVER be allowed.
8) Cross-site tracking should NEVER be tolerated.
9) Sites should be held responsible any ads that don't meet the rules above and abuse visitors

If I were king, I would require that all ads use markup similar to the following:

<aside class='advertisement'>
<h2>Advertisement</h2>
<div>
<a href='http://example.com/0000001'><img src='/ads/com-example-0000001.svg'></a>
</div>
</aside>

I'm sure that some other bright folks can recommend improvements such as adding appropriate ARIA roles or other metadata but I stand firm that ads should only ever be marked up using <a href=''><img src=''></a> with no scripting whatsoever.

When all sites adopt this model, then we will stop fighting the abuse of visitors by agressive advertisement and tracking. Until that point, we should all be blocking this crap using any technology available to kill any revenue that is gained by abusing visitors.

 

[v3rlon]

If you want to show me an ad, like a banner on MacRumors relevant to that site, I can live with it. I MIGHT even click on it.

If you want to track where I go when I leave MacRumors, well are you paying for my data you're using? Mobile companies charge you if you go over even by a single byte which means that you could incur a charge on my phone bill, for example.

Never mind how much LESS bandwidth I could get by with if every hack of an ad agency wasn't attempting to track every website I visit and how often I go to the bathroom based on keyboard inactivity.

And, there is no hell hot enough for pop up ad designers.

As long as there are data caps and bandwidth limitations, this type of tracking should be illegal.

 

[JackieInCo]

People want free content with no ads. That's not how it works. I want to see if people are so happy when half the internet is paywall (pay to view) content...

I just won't pay. It's the same with in app purchases, I don't pay for that crap and I won't pay for sites content when I can get it somewhere else. There will always be somewhere else.

My local newspapers site now blocks as blockers from viewing the site but I can still view their site on my phone, or I can simply disable java in my browser and still view their site on my Mac.

All these sites will find that people aren't willing to pay money for their content if all the sites start trying to charge. Who has that much money to pay for every site?

I've been blocking ads in all my browsers since adblockers became a thing back in wither the late 90s or 2000s.

 

[jpeagle]

Say what?

This is about the behavior of Safari. Nothing at all to do with ads in apps. And Apple doesn't have a web site ad platform of any kind.

Apple already controlled the ads in apps. Now, it is time to control ads on web through Safari.