“Do Not Track” Concept for Online Ads

iPwnNoobs

iPwnNoobs

Banned
Dec 5, 2009
1,512
72
0
uswest.battle.net
According to various reports, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering instituting a “do not track” list, similar in concept to the Do Not Call registry, for Internet users who want their browsing activity hidden from online advertisers.If implemented, this registry would keep advertisers from tracking your browsing and shopping history via cookies and serving customized ads based on your behavior.
This opt-out solution would be great for consumers who’d rather not have the commercial version of Big Brother watching their every online move while still allowing those more lax in matters of online privacy to benefit from increasingly sophisticated e-commerce technologies.
FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz told members of the Senate Commerce Committee recently, “We may explore in the context of behavioral advertising… a do-not-track mechanism that’s more comprehensive and easier to use than the procedures currently available. Under such a mechanism, users could opt out of behavioral advertising more easily rather than having to make choices on website-by-website basis.
Click to expand...


:action-smiley-052: :action-smiley-052: :action-smiley-052:
 


The FTC can go suck a dick - seriously. Worthless fucking organization.

People don't like being sold to but they love to buy. So what's the problem with serving them ads they'd most likely be interested in? If anything, consumers should be THANKING US for serving up relevant ads.

Makes no sense.
 
Fuck this. I don't want to be served ads about breast implants and makeup. I want ads related to kickass technology for killer prices. WTF is wrong with people?
 
MadMaxNine said:
someone wants some lobby money. elections are coming up.
Click to expand...

My thoughts , as well as possibly trying to get into the limelight with "OMG you people are being tracked... we'll save you!"

I mean for christ sakes, I'm all for reasonable level of privacy where it makes sense. But I don't want to be served a bunch of ads that are not relevant to me. Though sometimes the ads can be strangely too relevant, like watching Gunslinger Girls on Hulu (an anime about these underage girl assassins), and it kept showing me "This program is bought to you by The KY Brand".
 
And how would they pull this shit off? They won't be able to.
 
johu said:
And how would they pull this shit off? They won't be able to.
Click to expand...

Probably enforced in the same manner of being criminally charged for cookie stuffing. All it'd probably take is someone to somehow prove that you track their visits.

Though to make it some kind of law or regulation seems rather stupid when said users could just use privacy mode which is found on almost all modern browsers now. Basically just another way to save absent minded users from themselves, yet if passes will backfire on the users with ads to the feeling of the old Bing commercials, except without any relevancy to the user at all. It would certainly harm ad platforms that offer targeted views, namely adwords.
 
Riiiiiight

Real easy solution to this: yahoo, google, facebook, etc all just deny you access to ANY of their services when you're on this "list"

Ends in about 90 minutes when whiners suddenly cannot use the internet AT.ALL
 
Sonny Forelli said:
Riiiiiight

Real easy solution to this: yahoo, google, facebook, etc all just deny you access to ANY of their services when you're on this "list"

Ends in about 90 minutes when whiners suddenly cannot use the internet AT.ALL
Click to expand...

LoL, bout the equivalent of "You must have cookies enabled to use this service", pretty sure in all those services you mentioned its in the terms that you agree to this or that.
 
I would hope that Google would step up to the plate here and tell the FTC to fuck off...similar to the way they said to fuck off when the FTC was proposing taxing news aggregator sites to "save print journalism".
 
megatabbers said:
The FTC can go suck a dick - seriously. Worthless fucking organization.

People don't like being sold to but they love to buy. So what's the problem with serving them ads they'd most likely be interested in? If anything, consumers should be THANKING US for serving up relevant ads.

Makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, people hate to buy--buying shit costs money. People do however love to own. Understanding this difference, and taking advantage of it in your sales presentation -- makes money.
 
LOL trackers and cookies. I bought a couple strolleys from eBags.com few months back, and all I see on adsense on the content network are strolleys.... EVERY DAY EVERY SITE

Not just adsense, some display networks too. Somebody is buying analytics from a Big cookie stuffer like DART.. Lil tired of seeing eBags.

BTW, why don't they Ban the TV research outfits as well, and TAM?
 
Website owners should be allowed to run their sites however they want. If someone doesnt like what a site is doing, simply dont go to it. Very simple.

Lets regulate tasteless choice in wallpaper too while were at it, wouldnt it be nice if the government guaranteed to us that we would never have to see another high contrast butterfly kitchen wallpaper again no matter where we were a guest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom