Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday September 17 2017, @11:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-the-advertisers-don't-like-it,-it-sounds-like-a-good-idea dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow5743

Apple's limits on tracking will "sabotage the economic model for the Internet."

Apple's latest operating systems for the Mac and iPhone will soon be rolling out, and with that comes new restrictions on ad-tracking in the Safari browser. Adding a 24-hour limit on ad targeting cookies is good for privacy under Apple's new "Intelligent Tracking Prevention" feature. But if you're an advertiser, the macOS High Sierra and iOS 11 Safari browsers spell gloom and doom for the Internet as we know it. The reason is because Safari is making it harder for advertisers to follow users as they surf the Internet—and that will dramatically reduce the normal bombardment of ads reflecting the sites Internet surfers have visited earlier. Six major advertising groups have just published an open letter blasting the new tracking restrictions Apple unveiled in June. They say they are "deeply concerned" about them:

The infrastructure of the modern Internet depends on consistent and generally applicable standards for cookies, so digital companies can innovate to build content, services, and advertising that are personalized for users and remember their visits. Apple's Safari move breaks those standards and replaces them with an amorphous set of shifting rules that will hurt the user experience and sabotage the economic model for the Internet.

Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful.

The letter is signed by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the Data & Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and the Network Advertising Initiative.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/ad-industry-deeply-concerned-about-safaris-new-ad-tracking-restrictions/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday September 18 2017, @12:11AM (14 children)

    by Virindi (3484) on Monday September 18 2017, @12:11AM (#569537)

    Not that I see very many ads myself, but whenever I see the "personalized" ads other people are getting the suggestions are terrible. For instance, people will often be bombarded with ads for something they have already bought.

    I think the old model of choosing the ad based on the content it is being displayed alongside is more effective*. But, that wouldn't allow Google marketing to flap on about how they have a magical proprietary algorithm that makes people buy stuff. Then the information their algorithm was using would be public! Oh no!!!

    Not being able to track consumers would be far from ad armageddon. Maybe it would be a pain for Google, but I'm sure they could come up with some fancy marketing about how their algorithm picks the best content for your ad to run on. The biggest problem is that that wouldn't align with the apparently unstoppable freight train of "the best way to do everything HAS TO BE to know everything about everyone always"**.

    *You know, like ads have been from the dawn of time. If you want to sell a new type of sewing needle, put the ad in a sewing magazine.

    **And we have to be the only ones with access to this mountain of private data. Well, us and the spies. And of course anyone willing to pay enough and make guarantees that they won't let our competitors have it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stretch611 on Monday September 18 2017, @01:03AM

    by stretch611 (6199) on Monday September 18 2017, @01:03AM (#569558)

    You are absolutely right. After all, look at all the money poured into TV advertising... its not like TVs can do any ad tracking or personalization at all. (Unless you are stupid enough to have a "Smart" TV ;) )

    --
    Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @01:52AM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Monday September 18 2017, @01:52AM (#569581) Journal

    For instance, people will often be bombarded with ads for something they have already bought.

    So where are you going with this line of reasoning????

    It almost sounds like you want MORE tracking, so that once you buy Doohicky from Junk R Us, you will never see a doohicky ad from them again because they will have a record of it, look you up each time they detect they have served you an ad before.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday September 18 2017, @01:58AM

      by Virindi (3484) on Monday September 18 2017, @01:58AM (#569586)

      Where I am going is that TFA is really about how they want to track and not about making effective ads.

      "The internet needs tracking to survive!!" stinks of an excuse come up with by the "masters of the universe" to support their "know everything about everyone" goal.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @04:15AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @04:15AM (#569619)

    The issue is that this change breaks the kind of advertising that these companies provide.

    If you want to serve ads they need to target what a user is doing right now in order to have maximum effect.

    Targeting the user is usually a waste of money for businesses as there's no guarantee that the ads go to people actively looking right now.

    That being said, there are other forms of advertising lie content marketing and free tools that are immune to this.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday September 18 2017, @06:34AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday September 18 2017, @06:34AM (#569648) Journal

      lie content marketing

      Freudian slip?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 18 2017, @06:16AM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 18 2017, @06:16AM (#569644) Journal

    Ditto here. I block most ad servers. The few ads I do see, are for things I've already bought, and things that are similar to things I've already bought. I suppose that Amazon has the most intelligent advertising that slips through my filters. "People who bought this, also bought . . . " Now and then, I actually see something interesting among that trash. Ebay does much worse - they KNOW what I've bought, and what I haven't, what I've looked at through them. But, they insist on offering crap that I'm never interested in. The stupidest shit they push at me, is "men's styles". Not once have I ever bought a designer brand of ANYTHING, no Calvin Kleins, no Nike, nothing of the sort. But, they think I'm into men's styles. Go figure.

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday September 18 2017, @11:01AM (5 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Monday September 18 2017, @11:01AM (#569693) Journal

      No, they just want you to wear nicer clothes and spend more money..
      It only takes one ebay user to click on a "suggested" item and buy it for them to figure *you*, The Mighty Buzzard, will buy Calvin Klein undies, if they just show you the ads often enough.

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday September 18 2017, @12:01PM (4 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Monday September 18 2017, @12:01PM (#569711) Journal

        Should be an "or" after the *you*, sorry!

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:37PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @08:37PM (#569913)

          did you confuse Runaway with the mighty buzzard?

          i do too

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @09:22PM (2 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 18 2017, @09:22PM (#569933) Homepage Journal

            That's fair. I am wearing his underwear today after all.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:39AM

              by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:39AM (#570045) Journal

              But not Calvin Kleins...

              --
              "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Tuesday September 19 2017, @05:07AM

              by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday September 19 2017, @05:07AM (#570076) Journal

              Fueled by being sick and having no sleep all last night, I read this comment and I suddenly had a vision of putting you, Runaway1956, and a couple of other SN controversial posters into a room together, then bring in a video recorder, and start the session by playing the Weird Al song "Jerry Springer".

              Before I get modded as a troll, I'd like to suggest selling the video to help bring in money for Soylent News. I don't have any money right now, but I'd go rob an old lady to purchase a copy of that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @06:34PM (#569842)

      > Not once have I ever bought a designer brand of ANYTHING, no Calvin Kleins, no Nike, nothing of the sort. But, they think I'm into men's styles. Go figure.

      Maybe it's just their way of indirectly criticizing your current wardrobe :)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:56PM (#569761)

    Not that I see very many ads myself, but whenever I see the "personalized" ads other people are getting the suggestions are terrible. For instance, people will often be bombarded with ads for something they have already bought.

    Indeed, while I don't see normal ads, I'm always surprised when watching videos on Amazon Prime (where due to the streaming and the required login, Amazon knows exactly what I watched there), I get advertising emails suggesting me to watch the very same thing I just watched. Not even the next season, but the very same season of the very same series I just finished watching. It somehow doesn't make sense.