Not yet, but I will =)
1 Like
An interesting quote from âChaos Monkeysâ by Antonio Garcia Martinez:
In media, money is merely expendable ammunition; data is power. With this new programmatic technology that allowed each and every ad impression and user to be individually scrutinized and targeted, that power was shifting inexorably from the publisher, the owner of the eyeballs, to the advertiser, the person buying them. If my advertiser data about what you bought and browsed in the past was more important than publisher data like the fact that you were on Yahoo Autos right then, or that you were a (supposedly) thirty-five year old male in Ohio, then the power was mine as the advertiser to determine price and desirability of media, not the publisherâs. As it turned out, this âfirst partyâ advertiser data - the data that companies like Amazon know about you - is more valuable than any publisher data.
This was a seismic shift that would affect everything about how we consume media, leaving publishers essentially powerless and at the service of the various middlemen between them and advertiser dollars, all in the name of targeting and accountability. If the publisher wasnât savvy enough to arm itself with sophisticated targeting and tracking before tangling with the media-buying world, then that world would come to them, in the form of countless arbitrageurs and data quacks peddling media snake oil. Which is why even august publishers like the New York Times live at the pleasure of the media supply-side technology, data management solutions, and advertiser technologies that ostensibly pay them. Of course some very protective publishers like Google and Facebook, with unique media offerings, refuse to get arbitraged so openly, and to one degree or another, attempt to own the technical and the business connections between them and their advertising dollars.
Google moves towards implmenting a plugin/extension API to prevent ad-blockers to be effective in Chrome.
Mozilla seems to fight back.
ugh. several years ago when I talked with internet startups I advised them to move away from ad-based revenue models, as everyone would soon be using ad-blockers - but I see I was wrong: big tech is more than happy to revert it back to ad-based. Can we not come up with something more creative to make money but to shove products into our faces we donât really need?
1 Like
There are many decades of experience in media (newspapers, radio, TV, etc.) which I think got creative enough to know the basic score.
Ads
Subscriptions
Grants (public TV, Radio, etc.)
Plain ole do-gooders (hard to do on scale)
Unless I missed something thatâs about all there is. Even Grant based media uses ads these days (public radio, podcasts), although they are not in-your-face and tracking types.
Micro payments, which were the hot subject a decade or two ago, really never took off - but that is a subscription model in any case.
Itâs hard to imagine coming up with anything new after so many millions have thought about this for so long. There are only X number of ways to create income from mediaâŠand that is what is being discussed when it comes down to it.
1 Like
I guess like with all of this, it comes down to where any given line gets drawn and who gets to draw it. I recall that years ago there was this US law that disallowed subliminal micro-second message being flashed at you on TV or a movie theater saying things like âyou need Cokeâ as an example of the drawing of a line, in this case talking directly to your subconscious for purposes of manipulation. Somewhere along the line that standard (if it ever really existed) disappeared. because what is so different from that and all this data mining about you without your knowledge or express consent?
1 Like
This is a good interview with author Douglas Rushkoff about his new book, âTeam Human.â He says things we are talking about here and is being discussed in books, articles, etc - and is a big driver of this IoH/NGI project. But Doug is a clear thinking, plain speaking guy, who, like many of us, was a true believer for a long time until we have watched our rather rosy view of the digital future become clouded. This interview adds to our understanding of the problem I think.
pushed it to my e-reader for later today. Thanks for linking it!
This isnât a solution to moving away from the ad-based internet economy, but it surely seems to be a nice niche tool to not having to see those ads (if it at least ensures it canât be detected by the websites):
3 Likes
If enough ads got blocked then maybe other business models could emerge. But then, I am someone who has routinely for decades hit the mute button when the ads come on. I always figure that nobody would want to hear them. But at times when I have done that, some in the room actually objected because they wanted to hear the ads. And one time I was told that it is wrong for me to do that because it is my obligation to listen and watch them in exchange for seeing the content. I can see that argument, but how else does one control his or her immediate environment? Furthermore, cable news was sold to us all as an ad-free service since we have to pay for it. But that isnât how it turned out.
Iâm not sure if you are following the Edgeryders festival, but Iâm hosting an event on the topic of open source many of you should join on the 28:th november in Stockholm.
âDont leave the future of internet in the hands of the proprietary softwareâ =)
4 Likes
@erik_lonroth I am not in Stockholm. But this is really great work, thank you so much. It means a lot 
1 Like
âMozilla is no longer fighting for market share of its browser: it is fighting for the future of the web,â writes the Guardian, citing Mozilla Project co-founder Mitchell Baker: Bakerâs pitch is that only Mozilla is motivated, first and foremost, to make using the web a pleasurable experience. Googleâs main priority is to funnel user data into the enormous advertising engine that accounts for most of its revenue. Appleâs motivation is to ensure that customers continue to buy a new iPhone every couple of years and donât switch to AndroidâŠ"
It could be argued that the greatest social benefit that came from America Onlineâs fairly brief reign over the online world was their acquiring Netscape when it went on the sales block, and then, when it was clear that they were buying the talent more than the software (something they did pretty often actually), releasing the Netscape source code. This became the basis for Mozilla (which had been the name of the netscape mascot).
1 Like
Hi folks, Iâm a digital ethnographer for the NGI Forward team. Itâ been really interesting to follow everyoneâs discussion in this thread around advertising and the attention economy as the Internetâs business model and how it exacerbates surveillance and information capitalism.
Just saw that this yearâs Mozilla Fellows Harriet Kingaby and Frederike Kaltheunejust published a policy brief on this very topic so thought Iâd share: âAd break: The Race to regulate digital advertising and fix online spacesâ If you want a quick outline, you can check out summary Twitter thread here.
Thought Iâd share a small bit from the executive summary for the policy nerds in the group:
In this policy brief, we will argue that digital advertising â the business model that underpins most of the internet as we know it today â fails to support or sustain healthy digital spaces that are fit for purpose for the majority of people. The nature of contemporary digital advertising and its practices are at the core of some of the most pressing challenges facing societies today, from widespread and routine invasions of consumer protection and fundamental rights, to the funding of hate and misinformation. As a result, Europeâs chance at forging its own vision for the digital world hinges on its ability to regulate and ultimately fix an industry that has become unsustainable, especially as we are moving towards a world of AI and the Internet of Things (IoT) where online and offline environments become increasingly entwined. As it stands however, Europe lacks an overarching vision on how its digital strategy relates to online advertising. The Digital Services Act, the White Paper on AI, the Democracy Action Plan, the reform of the ePrivacy Direction, and the Commissionâs plans for enforcing competition in digital markets all address some aspects of the online advertising ecosystem. But there is a real risk that these separate initiatives will either lead to incoherent rules or that they will fail to address the core harms and risks associated with online advertising as we know it today.
If you have a moment to look at this, do these diagnoses and recommendations speak to your experience of navigating targeted advertising?
2 Likes
Thanks very much for this.
Given that the Internet has a strong winner-take-all tendency regardless of pay model, I do wonder if it is the ad model that is the core of the problem. Would there be less surveillance, profiling, trickery and other manipulations if everything were subscription or a direct pay model?
One example that comes to mind is the Habbo Hotel âchainâ of online game environments where you have an animated avatar stand in for yourself. It is free to use and they make money by selling stuff to you and making the games and social status center around the stuff they sell. But they bombard you with sales pitches. But, do they surveil as much as the giants like Facebook? Iâm sure they donât. But then they couldnât afford it.
Staying on the winner-take-all theme, I would argue that the size of the companies doing the surveilling portrayed in their paper, is as big a factor than any other, perhaps bigger. They have the money to hire the best talent. They can constantly refine every aspect of the service. They can spend the most on lobbying to make regulation as advantageous to them as possible. And they can successfully use tactics to reduce competitors market share.
Since their service gets better and their network of cohorts grows, the âstickiness,â to use an old term, increases. The tradeoffs improve from the consumer perspective.
Part of that of course is nobody really knows the full extent of what is being gathered in any given moment. all they might see is a denial until they turn off their ad blocker. Even then you wouldnât really know what was going on behind the curtain.
What to do about it? The EU focuses a lot of privacy and one knowing and controlling their data. But I would put anti-trust into the mix.
Iâm reading the paper now. It is thorough and well written. I recommend reading the paper itself rather than just the Twitter feed, although that has a bunch of good references too.
And they do touch on market dominance. My main takeaway from it is how unaccountable thew whole system is. Someone might know enough to be pulling many if not most of the strings, but there is no way to find out.
Itâs been said that we are now in the era of internet regulation, and all of the solutions proposed in this paper are regulatory in nature. I hope that the EC takes these recommendations into account. It seems that regulation and its enforcement is pretty much the only tool the EU has to determine the future of the Internet ad its effect on people. I think that the EC and NGI would most love to have some technical solutions show up that are European created and incorporate the EUâs privacy and data right into the design. But the odds of that are pretty low, so best to stick with regulation. It will take much fortitude to get it done.
@JollyOrc, we know you are quite busy these days, but @katejsim from our ethnographic research team has worked through this thread that you started a lot and above you can find here resulting comments and questions. I thought this might be interesting for you to look into and maybe react to
1 Like
After a first reading, I must say: Very much so.
There is one sentiment in there that I need to comment, courtesy of my dayjob at polypoly.coop: Your policy brief states that Step 1 should be to
I think I would want to rephrase that we need to
What the heck do I mean with that?
A lot of the data that I generate is not only highly useful for the surveillance capitalism, but also to me personally. My digital assistants get a lot smarter, I can examine my habits and thus have a better life. The important part though is that all this needs to be my data, not Googles or Facebooks data.
Companies will always have a legitimate interest in using personal data to serve us better or more interesting products. But that doesnât meant that they should keep that data, or use it without our explicit and actually informed consent. That means that the systems need to become a lot more human-friendly, and the infrastructure should support oversight and watchdog organisations right from the ground up.
2 Likes