Newspaper Association Thinks FTC Should Force Readers To Be Subject To Godawful Ads And Invasive Trackers
from the please-let-us-continue-to-screw-our-audience dept
So, it's come to this. After battling back against ad-blocking by guilting or forcing people into whitelisting sites -- rather than taking a good look at their terrible ad inventories, intrusive trackers, or reprehensible practices -- the press is turning to the FTC in hopes of having the government decide how you can surf the web. (h/t EFF)
The crux of the complaint [PDF] is various practices deployed by ad blockers that the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) considers to be anti-competitive or dishonest. But in its run-up to the actual complaints, the NAA makes some seriously stupid assertions.
Adblockers undermine the ability of publishers to continue to provide free or reduced-price content on the Internet because they undercut publishers’ ability to finance enterprise journalism, and they threaten the livelihood of journalists and other content creators.
This assertion continues to scapegoat ad blocking for many publications' decision to force readers to play "find the content" when visiting their sites. As user ad blindness eventually rendered banner ads invisible, the response has been to escalate intrusion, via new ad delivery methods like popunder/popups, autoplay video ads, pervasive trackers, or escalating encroachment of ads into the "content" area. If ad blocker usage is more prevalent, publishers really have no one but themselves to blame.
And there's nothing out there that suggests the only way a publication can remain profitable is by assaulting users with ads and tracking them all over the internet. But that's the narrative publishers have chosen because it's simpler to make users conform to their wishes than it is to cede ground to site visitors' best interests.
From there, the NAA's narrative gets even worse. In deriding "free-rider technology," the NAA defends its use of invasive trackers by implying that all content -- whether it's ads or the stuff site visitors actually want to see -- is equal in its eyes.
By preventing publishers from identifying repeat visitors and making these offers to them, content blockers harm consumers.
"Content blockers." If that's a slip, it's a Freudian one. This suggests those behind this letter to the FTC consider advertising to be just as worthwhile a use of bandwidth and user attention as the actual journalism buried underneath it.
In the NAA's eyes, the real villain here is "deceptive" ad blockers.
Ad-blocking companies argue that consumers should use their software to “opt out” of the online advertising ecosystem, either because of concerns with privacy or the data use represented by digital advertising. But as a review of the practices of adblocking companies discloses, consumers do not “opt out” of an ecosystem by using ad-blockers. Instead, they “opt in” to a deceptive new environment that does not adequately disclose its practices to consumers.
The supposed "deception" the NAA refers to is things like AdBlock Plus selling companies spaces on its "whitelist." Then it has the audacity to make claims about the darkish shade of ad blockers' kettles by claiming any information about these built-in whitelists is buried in the terms of service. Burial of crucial details under several pages of fine print is SOP for 99.9% of the internet -- including (especially) the same tracking software the NAA says is crucial to the survival of the industry.
The NAA also claims that evading paywalls -- if enabled by ad blockers -- is an "unfair method of competition." Considering how easy it is to evade most paywalls (via referral links, Google searches, going "incognito," etc.), it seems rather disingenuous to claim the automation of this process is somehow a violation of trade laws. For that matter, the complaint offers no proof that any popular ad-blocking extension actually offers this "service." (There are extensions written solely for that purpose, however.)
The complaint also takes issue with "replacement" services that substitute bad ads with better ads or offer micropayments to sites in exchange for blocking their revenue generators. The NAA insists these, too, are deceptive and should be kicked of the 'net by the FTC.
But most worryingly, the NAA wants internet users to be forbidden from taking steps to protect their privacy.
Some ad-blockers evade metered subscription services and paywalls by preventing publishers from identifying repeat visitors and making offers to consumers about their subscription services…
While it doesn't specifically name any apps or extensions that act in the interest of users' privacy, the wording used implies the use of IP-address obscuring options (VPNs, Tor) along with script blockers and software like the EFF's Privacy Badger are similarly unwelcome in its plan for the future.
What the NAA wants is an internet that operates on its terms. It wants to continue to deploy shitty ad inventories and allow users to take the bandwidth hit, all the while shadowing them across the web in hopes of shoving even more ads in their faces. There's no hint of a compromise in this complaint. It wants the FCC to force the web to bend to the NAA's will. At no point does it even consider the ramifications of this action. It's pure self-interest, disguised as a concern for poor consumers who have voted to opt-out of ad onslaughts by using "deceptive" ad blockers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad blockers, ads, business models, felony interference with a business model, ftc, newspapers, privacy, tracking
Companies: naa, newspapers association of america
Reader Comments
The First Word
“As a consumer I read the laughable complaint filed by the newspaper association and wanted to share some things.
We live in a nation where there are caps on the bandwidth consumers buy. Advertising doesn't care, and uses as much as possible, often pushing consumers into paying for 'overages' for the 'pleasure' of being assaulted by advertising.
The statement "they threaten the livelihood of journalists and other content creators", is most laughable. Their failing to adapt their business model isn't a burden everyone else should have to bear. There are many cases out there showing the threat to the livelihood of consumers when these sites offer up malicious advertising. Identity theft, extortion for the return of your files, theft of your passwords, and a host of horrible things aren't just a possibility it happens daily. It can take, in some cases, months of notifications that a site has been compromised and is actively harming users. No media site, that I am aware of, has offered to pay to fix a consumer harmed by their indifference to the subject.
The bad advertising offers no recourse to consumers, there is no one stepping up saying it is our fault and we'll fix it for you. Rather than demanding stricter guidelines from the advertising networks to try and stem the tide of malware, they demand new tools to defeat ad-blockers and open those consumers up to harm.
One would expect that there would be a government body that could regulate those selling the ad space and the ads to hold them responsible when they harm consumers. Perhaps if such a body had existed and punished sites & networks earlier, people wouldn't have had to resort to ad-blocking. Of course they would complain about the hassle it caused them, but one wonders if they have ever surfed their own sites without ad-blocking enabled to see first hand how horrible it actually is.
Being able to display an ad to make money, while costing consumers more in multiple ways seems like a very unbalanced equation. The loss of a computer during the time it is in for service trying to fight off an infection, the loss of security as passwords & logins could be stolen, the loss of cash having to pay higher prices for bandwidth because an autoplaying full screen take over ad got them 3 cents instead of 2.
The problem is of their own making. They expected consumers to accept being abused by 2 industries who care more about forcing the advertising onto you than to making sure that the advertising won't encrypt your files and demand hundreds to unlock. It might be far to late to get people to stop blocking ads online, they've done that much harm to consumers. Perhaps if they started to clean up the mess they created, people might come back.
Don't punish people for defending themselves from those who enable & profit from attacks on them.
Thanks for pretending to care,
TAC
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typo
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Newspaper Association think I should be forced to read?
Do they think I should be forced to have to read?
I probably shouldn't even ask such a question given the insane world we now live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does Newspaper Association think I should be forced to read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does Newspaper Association think I should be forced to read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does Newspaper Association think I should be forced to read?
http://i.imgur.com/dgGvgKF.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does Newspaper Association think I should be forced to read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear NAA:
Both of Them.
27 times in the last 10 minutes.
Until you fix that, go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our unchanging business models need you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our unchanging business models need you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our unchanging business models need you!
* Whenever you change a channel, you get ads that border on fraud, such as "10 Crazy Things Obama Won't Tell Homeowners About Their Mortgage".
* Whenever you change a channel, half of it will be covered by a pop-up ad until you close it.
* Whenever you change a channel, a video will play in the upper corner, drowning out the show you want to watch.
* When you change the channel, the show will start playing, but then start and stop as ads are loaded. Or the show will stop completely because it can't connect to the ad-server.
* When you change the channel, your TV is infected with malware and won't work until you take it be repaired, yet the TV channel claims no responsibility. (My favorite!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our unchanging business models need you!
* the target to close the pop-up and/or video is small enough to make a marksman sweat bullets, and
* the content jumps around like an over-caffeinated toddler because the ads are taking their sweet time loading in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Our unchanging business models need you!
> play in the upper corner, drowning out the
> show you want to watch.
Uh, some markets, they've been doing that for a long time.
While visiting my brother in Florida circa 2005?, I observed that his local broadcaster had a fat marquee scrolling on the bottom, a narrower one on the top, one on each side, and a big station ID icon that occasionally animated. The sidebars weren't wide enough for readable text, so they showed video ads.
The viewable area in the middle was a porthole of less than half the total screen area. He was used to it, and didn't realize that the rest of the country hadn't sunk that low. Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Our unchanging business models need you!
I stopped watching broadcast TV when they started putting those animated promo banners for other shows over the top of shows. It made the viewing experience simply too irritating to enjoy, no matter how good the show may be. I simply can't imagine how anyone could tolerate what you describe for more than half a second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cigar-Smoking Man: We have to get this "Internet News Website" thing banned! It is threatening the livelihood of our newspaper cartel! Time for some 'campaign contributions' to our minion, er, Congressional Representative...
10 years later...
Cigar-Smoking Man: We have to get these "adblockers" banned! They are threatening the livelihood of our Internet News Website cartel! Time for some 'campaign contributions' to our minion, er, Congressional Representative...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's my internet connection and those are my routers. My routers allow through what I want them to allow through. Control is mine, all mine.
It's my browser installation, configured how I want it. Mine, all mine.
My browser is a rendering engine. It renders content I want on what I own.
That is all.
Now if they want to try to sell me an addon subscription to allow me to see their ads then they can try to sell me one and I will control whether I buy it.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a consumer I read the laughable complaint filed by the newspaper association and wanted to share some things.
We live in a nation where there are caps on the bandwidth consumers buy. Advertising doesn't care, and uses as much as possible, often pushing consumers into paying for 'overages' for the 'pleasure' of being assaulted by advertising.
The statement "they threaten the livelihood of journalists and other content creators", is most laughable. Their failing to adapt their business model isn't a burden everyone else should have to bear. There are many cases out there showing the threat to the livelihood of consumers when these sites offer up malicious advertising. Identity theft, extortion for the return of your files, theft of your passwords, and a host of horrible things aren't just a possibility it happens daily. It can take, in some cases, months of notifications that a site has been compromised and is actively harming users. No media site, that I am aware of, has offered to pay to fix a consumer harmed by their indifference to the subject.
The bad advertising offers no recourse to consumers, there is no one stepping up saying it is our fault and we'll fix it for you. Rather than demanding stricter guidelines from the advertising networks to try and stem the tide of malware, they demand new tools to defeat ad-blockers and open those consumers up to harm.
One would expect that there would be a government body that could regulate those selling the ad space and the ads to hold them responsible when they harm consumers. Perhaps if such a body had existed and punished sites & networks earlier, people wouldn't have had to resort to ad-blocking. Of course they would complain about the hassle it caused them, but one wonders if they have ever surfed their own sites without ad-blocking enabled to see first hand how horrible it actually is.
Being able to display an ad to make money, while costing consumers more in multiple ways seems like a very unbalanced equation. The loss of a computer during the time it is in for service trying to fight off an infection, the loss of security as passwords & logins could be stolen, the loss of cash having to pay higher prices for bandwidth because an autoplaying full screen take over ad got them 3 cents instead of 2.
The problem is of their own making. They expected consumers to accept being abused by 2 industries who care more about forcing the advertising onto you than to making sure that the advertising won't encrypt your files and demand hundreds to unlock. It might be far to late to get people to stop blocking ads online, they've done that much harm to consumers. Perhaps if they started to clean up the mess they created, people might come back.
Don't punish people for defending themselves from those who enable & profit from attacks on them.
Thanks for pretending to care,
TAC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have to make sense from time to time, it keeps people guessing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need I say more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if it is put into place, it should come with full, unlimited liability for the content they serve.
If they present an ad that is actually malware, the publisher should be completely responsible for the damage it creates.
That's only reasonable -- they are ones insisting that the reader not block any of the content.
Of course this exposes them to an absurd scale of liability. Especially with encryption malware putting a specific price on the otherwise imprecise value of family photos and personal notes.
But that's really just shifting the cost back to the publisher.
I'm sure one of the first objections is that "we aren't responsible -- we were using a ad service". Well, then why can't the user decline the ad server content separately? They can't have it both ways...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong document attached?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought Experiment - Fair Use?
I then paste each article onto a separate piece of paper along with any accompanying related images.
I then hand the pile of pages to a friend, who reads the content.
Is this fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thought Experiment - Fair Use?
So your experiment seems like it should be a quadruple crime. You had two copies of the paper, and specifically avoided the ads for both copies. Then you gave those two copies to another person who also did not see the ads.
This causes four times the damage to the poor newspaper editors, journalists, photographers and printers. Think how much better off they would have been if you had actually read the advertisements in those newspapers. And then maybe just to be kind, read the ads a second time.
/s
* dead tree format -- otherwise known as 'paper'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thought Experiment - Fair Use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thought Experiment - Fair Use?
For this example, what you're looking for is the First-sale doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once more, with feeling
Advertisers are the enemies of privacy.
Advertisers are the enemies of bandwidth.
Advertisers are the enemies of users.
Advertiser are the enemies of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once more, with feeling
Advertisers totally ruined the golden age of television, and turned it into a vast wasteland by the mid 1970's.
Then came cable, supposedly without ads. But then advertising ruined that too.
Then came movie rentals on VHS. And then advertising.
And DVD, and ads.
And web pages. And ads. And as with all the prior examples, the ads started out mild. Then went totally out of control.
Then came internet streaming. And in some cases, ads -- even with paid service! Those services with the ads will inevitably be ruined by the ads. It is a disease that totally infects the medium in which it is placed.
Our roadsides are polluted with ads. And our cities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll just take the other option
I just won't go.
When the obtrusive ad pops up, takes over my screen, etc. - I just leave. If I see it enough, I stop following any links there (or leave the second I know where that damned Bit.ly link from twitter goes).
Done. Money/links/attention going to your smarter competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History repeating itself
First there were newspaper inserts that I promptly threw away
Then there were ads wrapped around the outside, and special sections interspersed throughout paper that quickly followed the inserts to the recycle bin
Then the actual news began being crowded off the page by ads... and I quit reading newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: History repeating itself
The rock bottom for those was PC Magazine, which included scented cards. They contaminated the whole magazine with a stench that would probably have worked as an insecticide.
I used to have my wife shake all the cards out and put the magazines in a plastic bag with a spoonful of bleach. After that the magazine mostly smelled like bleach, but you didn't need a gas mask to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell you what:
When advertising goes back to being as intrusive as it is in a print newspaper for the whole web, I'll consider turning off my adblock and privacy badger. Until then? Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hoW MANY YEARS?
That the easiest way to protect yourself from Virus and bots and PAYING SOMEONE TO CLEAN your computer at $50 per hour...is abit of protection..
WHY is there a market for..
Anti virus.(kasperky,avast,..)
Anti Bot.(spybot,adaware,..)
Malware removal.(kasperky,..)
SYSTEM cleaners that get rid of history, Cache files, and Garbage gathered on the net?(Ccleaner,...)
and recovery programs for windows AFTER some Idiot program DOES SOMETHING it shouldnt have..
NOW who has done any of this.
It ranges from MS, and a script in a music program.
to a Game maker that installed DRM that Corrupted a personal machine.
Why in HELL do we want/need/USE anything around to protect our computers???
Could blame for NOT sand boxing EVERYTHING that is used under windows. NOT protecting Windows itself, not letting ANY program augment or change the system files..
Its just that Spending 6+ hours to reinstall WINDOWS, and any other files you want..to get BACK to where you were...IS A PAIN..
I would LOVE a Browser that would TAG, every script installed on my computer, with a TAG of where IT CAME FROM...so that I could SUE the site that installed it..
1 Court case WIN, would REALLY shut this down fast..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the early days of cable TV you paid by writing a check each month and then got to watch programs ad-free. That didn't last too long in my area. The ads came back despite paying not to see them.
TV/radio could operate that way due to scarcity - most places only had two or three channels and a handful of stations; it wasn't like you could click off and watch something else. But the web has changed that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Simple Solution
There is a very simple solution to ad-blocking that gets past it 100% of the time. The only way to block this method is for targets to simply stop coming to your website at all, but they won't do that because of course you have content they wish to consume.
This simple solution is a bit antiquated, but we believe the internet is now a mature enough platform and your own sites are mature now and readers know where to find you.
The simple solution is this: host your own ads. I know, I know! It seems a bit backward-thinking but hear me out! You gain control once more! No longer at the mercy of someone else leeching off the content you work so hard to provide, you get to keep ALL the revenue generated from selling ads! You can charge whatever you wish, you can pick and choose who is allowed to display their advertising on your hallowed pages! Partnerships, ad campaigns, even small listings such as proper classifieds again! The only limits are you imaginations!
And no one can block your ads, they come directly from your own servers, no 3rd parties involved, you can even *gasp* vet your advertisers submissions and then can GUARANTEE your site is free of harmful malicious drive-by infecting ad networks! that your reader's safety comes first and you are proud to be conscientious caretakers of their online experience!
You have everything to gain by taking advertising in-house once more, and the faster you do it, the faster your readership numbers will blossom and you can get out ahead of the competition.
Sincerely,
The Entire Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the ad industry is so honest and pro competitive. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm very happy with them blocking sites to prevent those of us who use ad blockers from seeing their content. I don't want my eyeballs counted in the process of them determining how much they should charge for their ads.
None of their content is so unique that I absolutely must see it. Block my blocker, forget me visiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse on mobile
First there is a pile of sponsored links and/or ads at the top of the page. Then there are ads every two paragraphs. (And each paragraph is no more that two sentences.) Then there is another block of ads at the bottom of the page. Of course the article you are trying to read is split up into multiple pages, so you have to suffer through all of that mess all over again and again and again. And once you start actually reading an article, a popover ad appears and obscures the text that you are reading.
And this is without the pushed malware and fraudulent ads saying your phone is loaded with viruses.
Bill Hicks was right about Sales and Marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think that is in fact the only ramification they care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF''
Then give us the TOP speed possible...
I would do it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I KNOW...
Social sec numbers,
Credit card number
Drivers license
CHECK routing numbers
LETS watch the fun around the world..as fake ID is passed around, and Major Corps get hit with Credit card charges..
Lets have 1000 people running around Named 'JOE BLOW'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://vimeo.com/166807261
(tl;dw: it's that video of ad flooded AR, you probably saw it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, they are great! I really like targeted ads, they are even better, they are trying to waste my money, not my time. They don't have ads in Venezuela because there is nothing to sell and if there was it would probably be illegal.
If a company wants to provide content that they have made and investment to create and in return ask that you provide some screen real estate for advertising, that is a great deal.
When the ads becomes too annoying and invasive on a particular site, I stop going there.
If a site blocks me because I don't want their advertising, that is fine too.
What I don't understand is WHY THE FUCK DOES ANYONE NEED TO INVOLVE THE GOVERNMENT ??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What do you mean actions have consequences?!"
They didn't care what the public wanted, now they get to enjoy the fallout from their indifference, and they have no-one to blame but themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also block ads at the router level on my network. I will continue to do that.
I will just IGNORE the law and do it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How far will the control go?
Will I be prohibited from modifying my hosts file?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How far will the control go?
Then you just get rid of any evidence using a program like Evidence Eliminator or KillDisk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How far will the control go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird definition of "harm"
I actively choose to prevent tracking as much as possible, largely because of pervasive ad-related tracking. Am I harming myself? If so, isn't that my right?
This sort of argument always irritates me because it betrays a fundamental misconception that advertising agencies just can't seem to disabuse themselves of: that targeted advertising is a benefit to the people being advertised to.
It is not. It is a benefit to advertisers and advertisers alone. It is a cost to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Advertising is enforced (at gunpoint?) but then anyone serving an add thats offensive or malware is on the hook for FULL punitive damages.
2. Websites build a system where you have to watch 30 seconds of intrusive adverts BEFORE reading the content. Then watch their pageviews tank as people close the site 1-2seconds in.
3. Websites build NON-Intrusive (hey you stop laughing at the back) adverts that people don't mind that cannot serve up code in any way shape or form...i.e. basic animations and no javascript etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is exactly zero chance that I will stop blocking ads unless ads stop tracking me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adblocker blocking costs real paper money
1. wired has been deleted from my bookmarks/favorites.
2. I don't follow links to stories on Wired's website.
3. Renewal notices for the paper magazine will join other paper in the recycling bin.
I've enjoyed wired for a long time, but I won't pay double for their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adblocker blocking costs real paper money
Publishers are finally getting wise to router-level ad blocking (which, franly, is better than AdBlock, becuase pages load faster), but it will take them time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Adblocker blocking costs real paper money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]