Filecoin Foundation Donates $10 Million Worth Of Filecoin To Internet Archive

from the huge-news dept

Some really fantastic news if you believe in (1) the wonderful work the Internet Archive does and (2) the future of a more decentralized internet (and, for what it's worth, you should believe in both of those things). The Filecoin Foundation has donated 50,000 FIL to the Internet Archive. This is approximately $10 million worth of Filecoin, which represents the largest single donation to the organization. Obviously, by the amount alone, this is a big deal and hugely important for an Internet Archive that is currently facing an existential legal attack by publishers who hate the very idea of libraries.

But it's doubly interesting, because Filecoin is a key component that many are hoping will empower a new more distributed web. And it appears that the Internet Archive is looking to take advantage of this aspect as well (as it should):

“Holy Crow! This is a big deal,” said Brewster Kahle, the Internet Archive’s founder. “And what are we going to do with it? We’re going to invest it in making the Internet Archive more decentralized, so that our digital history is available from thousands of computers, not just a few. The idea is to make a robust and private Internet that has a history that will persist over decades and maybe centuries.”

This is amazing news and exciting for both the future of the Internet Archive and a more distributed internet, not under the control of any single big internet giant.

Filed Under: distributed web, filecoin, library, support
Companies: filecoin foundation, internet archive

Modder Solves 'GTA Online' Loading Time Problem, Gets Paid By Rockstar For It

from the mods-are-your-friend dept

When it comes to how the video game industry interacts with modding communities, it can be frustrating just how often companies see modders as a menace. Nintendo has a long, long history of treating mods as a threat to its control, but it is certainly not alone. But modding by and large is not a threat to game makers. Actually, it's a boon. Mods tend to make games more interesting to more people and can often lengthen the lifecycle of a particular game.

And sometimes a mod can simply fix a game. That is what a coder, going by the name t0st, did for the long loading times in Grand Theft Auto Online.

A couple of weeks ago, we reported that a Grand Theft Auto Online player sick of the game’s notoriously long load times took matters into his own hands, broke out the disassembler, and crafted his own fix. The long load times were due to the inefficient way that the GTA Online developers chose to parse and then sort the data in a large multi-megabyte JSON file.

The fix—created by a coder known as t0st—resulted in a 70-ish percent decrease in loading times, going by t0st’s own informal benchmarks. For players suffering from the JSON parsing issue, this means that they only have to wait perhaps one or two minutes to enter a GTA Online game, rather than the six-plus minutes they were previously stuck watching the loading screen.

Now, it's easy to see how Rockstar Games could have handled this poorly. The company could have chosen to feel embarrassed by this modder fixing its product. It could have simply seen a change in coding for its game through a mod as a threat. It could have claimed that all of this was unauthorized and therefore copyright infringement.

Instead, Rockstar reached out to t0st, reviewed his work, and paid him for it.

In the two weeks since t0st’s fix was made public, GTA Online developer Rockstar got in contact with t0st and acknowledged that t0st had indeed fixed a legitimate issue with the game and that he’d be receiving a $10,000 payment under Rockstar’s bug bounty program.

It's worth noting that there is no indication t0st did this work because of the bounty program. He or she appears to simply be a fan of the game but not the loading times. By not seeing everything through a prism of control, Rockstar got its game fixed.

All of this serves as a reminder that the biggest fans of good content can be the biggest contributors to that content in ways that mean more interest and sales for the game. If you let them.

Filed Under: bug bounty, gta, gta online t0st, modders, support
Companies: rockstar

Google Kills Nest Secure, Can't Be Bothered To Explain Support Roadmap

from the you-don't-own-what-you-buy dept

Three years ago, Google jumped into the home security market. After a troubled development cycle it launched Nest Secure, a $500 home security system that competes with the likes of Abode and Simplisafe. But things didn't go quite as planned. Last year, the company took some deserved heat for failing to mention the system's "Nest Guard" keypad control base included a hidden microphone, creating ample paranoia among owners. Google also took heat for failing to really deploy updates at the same pace that other Nest products had seen, and for making changes that locked you into the Google ecosystem at the cost of interoperability.

Last week the company quietly told Android Police it would be killing the Nest Secure completely. The company didn't really explain why, or what happens next, only to state that the product will still work. For now. Of course when Ars Technica pressed the company as to how long existing users can expect their expensive security service to get support, the company apparently couldn't be bothered to answer:

"We tried asking Google about all this a few days ago when we got a tip that the Nest Secure was listed as "no longer available" (thanks, Bill!) but the company wouldn't answer. Included in our email were questions about what the future looks like for existing Nest Secure users, like if they'll ever be able to buy more sensors or replacement sensors for their existing setups (these have been out of stock for a while now) or how much longer the Nest Secure will be supported for. Even if Google doesn't immediately turn off the software support, a system with no replacement parts can only die a slow death."

So not just murky answers, but no answers at all.

Hyping products and entire ecosystems, then destroying them with a casual wave without transparent communications isn't a great way to develop consumer trust. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's part and parcel for a hardware industry that routinely bricks or stops supporting hardware and ecosystems you just got done shelling out hundreds to thousands of dollars for. That's especially true in home automation and security, where users have to shell out an arm and a leg for various household sensors that in many instances won't work with any other systems due to companies that view interoperability as a threat to walled gardens.

In this case, users have invested upwards of thousands of dollars for a home security ecosystem with an uncertain support future. And despite the fact that Google may be cooking up a new system with its partners at ADT, when it inevitably comes time to replace these expensive systems, or invest hundreds to thousands of dollars in a new ecosystem (be it Stadia game streaming or anything else), the message being sent is that you can't trust Google to stick around and truly support the ecosystems their marketing department just got done claiming you couldn't live without.

Filed Under: google graveyard, nest, nest secure, roadmap, support
Companies: google, nest

Sonos Backs Off Plan To Brick Older, Still Functioning Speakers

from the you-no-longer-own-what-you-buy dept

Back in January, Sonos took some well earned heat for a new product "recycle mode" that effectively bricked older smart speakers the company was no longer interested in supporting. They're now backtracking from the effort after significant backlash.

It began last October, when Sonos announced a new "Trade up" upgrade program that let you trade in older Sonos hardware for a 30% discount on new speakers. But the program included a bizarre caveat: to get the discount, users need to put their old hardware into "recycle mode," which effectively bricks the product preventing it from being used again. According to Sonos, once you apply online you'll get the discount immediately, but the speaker system you're trading in goes into a 21 day countdown mode before it's inevitably made useless:

"Recycle Mode is a state your device enters 21 days after recycling confirmation in the Sonos app. In Recycle Mode, all data is erased and the device is permanently deactivated so you can safely and securely dispose of it. Once a device is in Recycle Mode, it cannot be reactivated."

Everybody including environmental and "right to repair" activists, professional home stereo installers, and ordinary consumers quickly complained about the decision, arguing that it effectively crippled expensive hardware that still worked. The fact that repurposing the hardware (or selling it to somebody else) never entered Sonos' executives brains suggested the program -- which is heavily hyped as being "environmentally friendly" -- wasn't particularly well thought out.

After months of complaints however it seems like Sonos has seen the error of its ways, and has seemingly removed the entire option from the company's app:

"In recent days, however, Sonos quietly removed the recycle mode option from its app, replacing it with a prompt to call customer service. Additionally, the company now says it's working on posting a new trade-in flow to its website, which will remove recycle mode from the process."

Sonos still won't be supporting these older, expensive products, but at least they'll still work moving forward. Users can also still get the discount, but users simply have to register the serial number of their existing speaker. And while Sonos' about face is a very good thing, it's just another in a long line of examples of how, in the modern era, you no longer actually own the things you buy.

Filed Under: iot, ownership, smart speakers, support
Companies: sonos

Spectrum Customers Stuck With Thousands In Home Security Gear They Can't Use

from the walled-gardens dept

For the better part of the decade, ISPs like Comcast and Spectrum have been desperately trying to carve out a niche in the home security and automation space. But despite their best efforts those projects haven't gone particularly well, to the point where big ISPs try to hide how many subscribers have signed up for such service in earnings reports. Historically, users already feel they pay their cable TV and broadband provider too much money, and only a few folks feel it's worth paying them even more for home security and automation products they can find elsewhere, usually for less.

Customers received a good reminder last week of why it's not worth buying home security and automation services and products from their ISP. Charter Spectrum, the nation's second biggest cable provider, has announced it's shuttering its home security services as of February:

"At Spectrum, we continually evaluate our products to ensure we are bringing you superior, consistent and reliable service. We perform regular reviews of our services and as a result, effective February 5, 2020, we will no longer be providing or supporting Spectrum Home Security service."

The problem: customers spent thousands of dollars on much of this Spectrum-branded gear, and while the hardware they received supports smart home standards like Zigbee, they're built in such a way as to be locked to Charter's (soon to be nonexistent) systems, rendering them useless. Needless to say users aren't thrilled to learn they now own thousands of dollars in useless hardware, something that wouldn't have happened had they bought off the shelf gear:

"All these devices are Zigbee based, made by a major player in the Zigbee devices game. Under normal circumstances, you would be able to take all your stuff and move it over to your own home automation solution (Samsung SmartThings, Wink, Hubitat to name a few). But nope, not Spectrum’s devices. Early on they were firmware coded to prevent them from being seen and usable within the normal universe of Zigbee devices. With a couple of exceptions Spectrum’s Zigbee devices will only see the Spectrum Zigbee universe. So essentially after Feb. 5, 2020 your house full of Zigbee devices will be useless."

Spectrum users are quick to point out this could have all been avoided with a little elbow grease by Spectrum, but the company couldn't be bothered:

"The criminal part in this is that with literally a 10 minute fix and firmware to those devices BEFORE they shutter their service would open them to the universe of compatible Zigbee devices but you can take to the bank that Spectrum isn’t going to do it, otherwise they would have mentioned it with the announcement. All those hundreds of dollars (thousands in some cases) down the drain… how does that make you feel?"

The cable industry's relentless desire to keep you locked in their proprietary walled gardens are also on full display when it comes to their cable box monopoly, and it's one of countless reasons why these companies enjoy some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings in America. And while Spectrum has struck a deal with Abode to give these customers a discount on new security systems, that's cold comfort for those who shelled out thousands of dollars for hardware they can no longer use.

Filed Under: home security, iot, ownership, support
Companies: spectrum

Bad Ads We Won't Bombard You With And Other Ways To Support Techdirt

from the thanks-for-your-support dept

Check out our new list of all the ways you can support Techdirt »

Let's get a few things out of the way first: we are rarely aggressive in asking for support on Techdirt. Many other sites do complete takeovers or popups or have pleas for funding that take up half the screen. We don't do that. However, every so often we do remind folks that we need support to keep running -- so today I'm going to do that with what is hopefully an interesting story and a discussion on the kinds of things we won't do for money.

If you haven't yet heard it, I want to recommend a recent episode of the Reply All podcast entitled An Ad for the Worst Day of Your Life. It is quite an amazing story involving a guy whose wife died suddenly and unexpectedly a day after their daughter was born. That happened back in 2008, and the guy, Matt, was quite understandably distraught. He began blogging about his life as a widower and single father. The blog caught on and got more and more attention. Eventually, Matt decided the blog was no longer necessary, pulled it down, and moved on with his life.

Then, this year, just as he was about to get remarried, he suddenly started seeing ads with a giant picture of him -- and his dead wife. Those ads were showing up everywhere, thanks to the various sites that include awful units full of "Stories From Around the Web" or "Stuff You May Have Missed" or whatever. You know what they look like. They're always filled with the worst kind of clickbait crap imaginable. "Whatever happened to..." "Eat this if you want to live longer..." That kind of stuff. Here, I just randomly opened up a story on Google News, scrolled to the bottom and got this example:

They're all over the damn place -- and many publishers love them, because they pay a lot more than just about any other ads. The Reply All episode calls these "Chumboxes" -- a term I'd not heard before -- and then goes through the process of figuring out how Matt's picture kept showing up in them. It's convoluted, but involves content farms playing a weird arbitrage game of writing clickbait stories and then trying to attract traffic to sell their own ads. A story about a dead wife gets clicks. And that generates more fake stories about Matt and his wife and more ads and more clicks. It's a huge mess of crap, but it pays incredibly well.

The two major companies who provide these things are Outbrain and Taboola. And they're big. There are a few other smaller operations, but Outbrain and Taboola are the main ones. Outbrain has raised nearly $200 million and bought up many of its smaller competitors. Taboola has raised $160 million.

Here's the thing: Taboola, specifically, has been after us to put these ads on our site for years. We told them no, and they kept coming back. We told them no again and explained that we think those ads are crap and are an insult to our readers (because they are). And the company said, "No, we have quality filters and we promise it'll show good ads." Eventually we said we'd take a look and ran a test with our content using their "quality filters." And, guess what? The ads were still awful crap that would be insulting to you. So we told Taboola no. But they don't let up. Every few weeks we get another request from Taboola. They email. They try to friend us on Linkedin. They try to friend us on Facebook. And we keep saying no.

Because, despite what some trolls will say about us doing anything that will get clicks or money, we have no desire for short term revenue that fucks over our community. Because we actually value you guys (even some of our critics). Using crappy services like Taboola and Outbrain shows a lack of trust and lack of respect for your community. It shows a level of short-term money-grab thinking that is insulting and disrespectful. And that's too bad, because the concept behind Taboola and Outbrain could be good. If we could use a service like that which would actually take you to good and relevant information around the web, and get us paid at the same time, that would be great. Indeed, seven or eight years ago we partnered with a company that promised that. And then, a month later, they said they were no longer doing that and wanted us to do sketchy stuff. And we no longer work with that company.

We've talked before about how traditional banner ads -- the kinds from Google AdSense, for example -- have become next to useless over the last few years. The rates keep dropping to the point that they're barely worth including at all. In fact, we're exploring some new advertising programs that respect our community by not including any tracking technology at all, so if you happen to work for a company that wants to advertise in a respectful manner, please contact us.

All of that is to say: we try to respect the community here, even at the expense of revenue. And that sometimes makes things quite difficult. So we need to rely on you, our community, more and more. We try to be as respectful as possible. We don't put up paywalls. We don't complain if you use ad blockers. Hell, we let you turn off the ads on the site. But we also sometimes need to ask for support, and we've tried to make it possible to support us in many, many, different ways. We've now put up a page that lists out all the ways you can support us, from becoming an Insider (the easiest and most direct way to support us -- and we're working on some fun updates to that program), to backing us on Patreon, to buying one of our many t-shirt designs (more coming soon) to buying products from our deals store, from which receive a commission. We also have a partnership with Private Internet Access if you're looking for a VPN.

We're also just now launching a new job board in partnership with ZipRecruiter, and if you're looking to hire someone and post a job there, it helps support us as well (also, if you're looking for a tech job, go check it out).

Our goal, as always, is to build and support this community -- but it does take some money to keep things going. We know that not everyone can support us monetarily and we do our absolute best to make the site and community work for everyone, without being annoying or intrusive. But that does mean that every once in a while we may need to remind you that we need your support and explain the way we think about these things.

Filed Under: bad ads, fans, insider, native advertising, support
Companies: outbrain, taboola, techdirt

Cable Industry's Own Survey Shows Majority Support Net Neutrality Rules

from the when-push-polls-backfire dept

The broadband industry is continuing its brave campaign to convince the public that gutting all oversight of growing monopolies like Comcast somehow ends well for the American consumer and smaller Comcast competitors. Last week this involved the cable industry's top lobbying organization (the NCTA) working with the Daily Caller on a poll the industry clearly hoped would show that the public really hates net neutrality protections. The full survey of 2,194 Americans (pdf) uses omission and leading questions to nudge participants toward taking the view that net neutrality protections are "burdensome regulations" imposed by an out of control government.

But it didn't work out that way.

As it turns out, 61% of the survey participants said they support rules prohibiting giant ISPs like AT&T and Comcast from being able to use the lack of last-mile competition in broadband to their anti-competitive advantage:

Note, again, that just 18% truly oppose net neutrality rules, while 21% still somehow have no apparent idea what any of us have been talking about for the better part of the last decade. And while the results pretty clearly suggest that the majority of the public supports the rules (which previous data has already suggested), this being the post-truth era, ISP-funded think tank employees like the AEI's Roslyn Layton were quick to insist the survey somehow proved the exact opposite:

Layton, one of Trump's telecom advisors, not only intentionally misstates what the survey actually found -- but she pushes for Congress to proceed on a new net neutrality law. As we've noted numerous times, the FCC knows it may be on shaky legal footing as it tries to roll back the rules via FCC process, since the agency will need to show that the broadband market has changed substantially since the court upheld the rules last year. As such, large ISPs (and friends) are pushing for a new law to "settle" the issue once and for all. You're to ignore that AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Charter will be the ones writing it, ensuring it has so many loopholes as to be effectively useless.

The NCTA had only modestly better luck with other questions by forcing consumers to pigeon-hole their thoughts into arguably narrow silos. One question for example, asks "when it comes to the role of the federal government in regulating access to the Internet, which of the following comes closest to your view, even if none are exactly right?" Users were then forced to choose one of several narrow options, the majority answering that they thought it best that the government engage in a "light touch" approach to the internet where the government only acts if consumers are harmed:

So one, despite large ISP hand-wringing, we've noted time and time again that the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules weren't really particularly onerous. Indeed, for those who actually understand them, they clearly are "light touch." They specifically blocked themselves from making use of any of the more onerous provisions of Title II (and, no, they can't just ignore that "forbearance" process and change their minds). In fact, the rules didn't even ban ISPs from using arbitrary usage caps to hamstring competing services (aka "zero rating"), saying the FCC would only step in during obvious evidence of harm (precisely what the majority of the respondents indicated they wanted). And contrary to repeated ISP claims, the rules did not stifle investment.

Meanwhile, as Ars Technica was quick to point out, the question responses suggest the majority of the public generally approves of the FCC approach in more recent years:

"The problem with the "ability to set specific prices" and "take action if consumers are harmed" survey answers is that both of them accurately describe the current federal system. The FCC does have the ability to set specific Internet prices, but it doesn't do so and has no intentions of doing so. The FCC's 2015 net neutrality order did not set specific prices for home and mobile Internet service but used Title II authority to let consumers complain about prices and practices that are unjust or unreasonable. In other words, the FCC's current approach is to "monitor the marketplace and take action if consumers are harmed," the approach supported by the majority of people in the cable survey."

Despite ISPs ceaselessly whining that the FCC overreached when it comes to net neutrality, people need to understand that this is traditionally an agency -- under both parties -- that happily turns a blind eye to predatory duopoly behavior, especially as it pertains to limited competition and how that results in Americans paying significantly more money for broadband than their European counterparts. That the FCC was going to seriously wake up to these problems and begin fully holding these duopolies accountable has never truly been a worry -- even under recent FCC boss Tom Wheeler.

You'll recall the FCC's $300 million broadband map intentionally omitted including pricing data at ISP request (include it, and somebody might just realize the industry isn't competitive). The FCC (again, under both parties) has also long turned a blind eye to the use of usage caps and overage fees to levy tolls on these uncompetitive markets (and competitiors), and the use of misleading below-the-line fees to jack up the cost of service after users sign up at the advertised rate (read: false advertising). This is, "light touch" regulation by any definition. To a fault.

And, contrary to public wisdom and large ISP jargon, the FCC passing some fairly modest net neutrality rules -- and returning ISPs to common carriers under Title II so those rules could be adequately enforced (something you can technically thank Verizon for) -- doesn't mean that was going to change anytime soon.

It's important to understand that the majority of ISPs were okay with the lion's share of the FCC's net neutrality rules, given they gave ample leeway for things like zero rating, and only truly prohibited things most ISPs never intended to do anyway for fear of a PR backlash (blocking a single website or service, for example). The real fear among providers like Verizon is that the FCC might, under some future theoretical leadership, actually wake up and decide to use its authority granted by the Communications Act to do something about the lack of competition in the sector.

To thwart this theoretical and unlikely future, FCC boss Ajit Pai's current plan is to gut FCC authority over broadband and shovel it over to an over-extended, under-funded, and jurisdiction-limited FTC, where large ISPs know these problems will fall through the cracks. Most reasonable folks realize that until we somehow bring more competition to bear on the sector, we're likely going to need a bit more regulatory supervision than we might otherwise like for some of the least competitive toddlers in American industry. After all, even the cable industry's own survey says so.

Filed Under: net neutrality, public, regulations, studies, support
Companies: comcast, ncta

What Our Supporters Are Saying About Techdirt's Coverage Of Encryption

from the some-good-quotes! dept

Help Techdirt Cut Through The Confusion In The Crypto Fight

So our big crowdfunding campaign around encryption is in its final couple of days. In the past few weeks, we've had guest posts from a number of knowledgeable people explaining why it was so important to support Techdirt -- including EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn, former CIA operative (and current novelist) Barry Eisler, Media Professor Dan Gillmor and former Senate staffer Jennifer Hoelzer. Hopefully, those were enough to convince you to support us as well.

If not, then perhaps some of what people who are already supporting us have had to say? Over on Beacon, many of the people backing our campaign have also left their comments on why they're supporting us, and it's quite a worthwhile read. I hope you'll take the time to skim through the comments there, but here are a few:

"So much misinformation and bad analogies about the idea of encryption leads to people changing the debate in dishonest ways. Mike has shown keen insight in getting it right and keying in on the heart of the matter." -Stephen Marsh

"I am happy to support this project as I have seen what Techdirt was able to create with the Net Neutrality Battle project here on Beacon. I think having a similar style in reporting about encryption is hugely important for the future of the internet and all our digital devices which seem to have an ever increasing effect on our lives." - Christian Gelinek

"This is a complex and contentious topic, and I trust the team at Techdirt to help bring clarity to the discussion. Techdirt’s ability to cut through the BS and FUD is always welcome, too!" - Per Dutton

"Techdirt is one of the best journalism outlets I’ve ever seen for digital rights, free speech, and tech literacy. I’m a huge fan, and I’m eager to support it growing and reaching even more people." - Jon Jones

"Almost every story you write about matters. But even more importantly it is time to start taking our rights back from those who would give us 'safety and security.'" - Jason Meyer

"I'm fairly new to Techdirt, but already very much appreciate the types of issues you cover, the extent you cover them, and the insight/analysis you provide. Thank you." - Kevin T. McIntyre

"This topic sorely needs clarity and the kind of journalistic integrity that Techdirt consistently delivers on these kinds of issues." - Deb Nicholson

"Techdirt does crucial, substantive reporting on a number of issues and we should all support their work." - Charlie Hale

There are many more comments as well, and I hope that you'll check them out... and support our campaign. Thanks!

Facts Not Fear: Support Techdirt's Coverage Of The Encryption Fight

Filed Under: campaign, crowdfunding, encryption, going dark, support, techdirt

Techdirt Needs Your Help To Fight Encryption Fearmongering

from the please-support-us dept

TL;DR: Support our coverage of the encryption battle!
In the summer of 2014, we ran a crowdfunding campaign to help support Techdirt, in order to do more in-depth reporting on the big net neutrality fight happening in Washington, DC (and, more broadly, around the globe). That campaign was successful beyond our wildest expectations, and allowed us to do much more thorough reporting (including bringing on Karl Bode to help cover these issues) on such an important issue. We ended up writing well over 300 articles since that campaign ended, and that initiative is still ongoing.

Now, we're launching another crowdfunding campaign for an issue that's even more important: the fight over encryption. And so I wanted to ask you to support us again in this new campaign. We literally cannot do this without you:

Techdirt needs your help to fight encryption fearmongering.
As you almost certainly know, this battle has ramped up in the last few years -- first in response to the Snowden revelations, followed by a rush by many, including Apple, to better encrypt their services and devices. However, law enforcement and the intelligence communities are less than pleased about all of this, and have been pushing for backdoors and other legislative solutions. This is not new. They pushed for such things in the 1990s, in the original "Crypto Wars," and lost. But now they see a new opening to try again. In the last couple weeks, this issue has blown up even more, as the DOJ sought, and received, a court order directing Apple to effectively write special software to allow the FBI to hack into an iPhone to get around existing encryption and security features.

And, it's not just about this current Apple fight. Or just the US. Congress is looking at this issue, and other governments are eagerly considering how they can use the US's efforts to serve their own wishes. And that's not to mention various other technologies and companies that have been impacted by this debate already.

This is a big deal. It will impact how technology works and how you maintain your security and privacy going forward. It will impact what you get to do on your own devices, and what the government can force companies to do. And not just in the US. The rest of the world is watching closely how this battle plays out, to figure out what they might be able to get away with as well.

And, frankly, most of the reporting is abysmal or, at the very least, confused. When the story of the Apple court order broke, most initial reports falsely stated that the court ordered Apple to "break the encryption" on its phones. We were the first site (and for a while, the only site) to post the actual court order and to discuss what it actually said.

And this is a case where the specifics and the details matter... a lot. We want to be able to do a lot more reporting like this, really digging into the issues and explaining them in a way that everyone can understand and focus on the facts, rather than the fearmongering.

But to do that, we need your support. Believe it or not, writing about the arcane details at the intersection of technology and policy does not attract big time advertisers. In fact, we've lost many advertisers due to our willingness to call out bad behavior by large companies.

So, please support our campaign:

Techdirt needs your help to fight encryption fearmongering.
As with the last campaign, the focus is in funding our ongoing reporting on this issue, but we also are hoping to do some creative experiments as well, to further expand the reach of that reporting. So, if we can reach our initial target of $20,000, we'll use some of that money to buy a large number of targeted ads in publications that are read by policymakers in DC (and their constituents), that link back to our reporting. For each $10,000 beyond that that we reach, we'll add another experiment in ways to have our reporting actually reach more people -- including policymakers, the public, and the press.

If you supported us last time around (or in other ways, such as via our Techdirt Insider Shop), I can't thank you enough for your support, and I hope that you found our reporting on net neutrality useful and valuable. If you haven't supported us in the past, please consider doing so now. We strive to not only do great reporting on these issues -- which means actually going beyond just the "he said, she said" versions to calling out blatant lies and hypocrisy when we see it -- but to also build a community here. That means we work extra hard to welcome in people to comment and discuss issues, and we try to avoid the practices adopted by many other sites to push people away. We don't do "paywalls." We don't demand that you turn off ad blockers. Hell, we let you turn ads off on the site. And we also do things like better protect you by still being one of only a few news sites that is fully HTTPS encrypted.

But all of that costs us. Calling out companies means that lots of companies don't want to advertise with us. The ability to turn off ads and only accept HTTPS ads means that our ad revenue is significantly limited. But we still think it's worth it, because focusing on building a better, more engaged community here, where you're welcome to participate, is really important to us. But it also means that, every so often, we may reach out for some help. And now is one of those times. So please consider supporting us.

Techdirt needs your help to fight encryption fearmongering.
Oh, and if you need one last reason to support us... yesterday I emailed backers of the original campaign to give them a heads up about this, and look how someone reacted:

@mmasnick Oh neat, an email from Mike, wonder what he and @techdirt are up to now . . .

. . . oh god pic.twitter.com/4dIaEFyJ2s

— NSA Public Relations (@NSA_PR) February 25, 2016

Filed Under: backdoors, crowdfunding, doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, support, techdirt

You Can Now Turn Off Ads On Techdirt

from the go-ahead dept

We get it. Many of you really hate online advertising. And, indeed, there's often a good reason for that. The ads can be irrelevant, intrusive and annoying. And, in some cases, they can even be dangerous, as scammers or those with malicious intent slip bad code into ad networks in order to wreak havoc on visitors' computers. So here's a deal: if you don't want to see display/banner ads on Techdirt any more you don't need to. Just go to your preferences page (whether you have an account or are just browsing without a login) and click the button saying you want to disable ads. And, that's it. No more network display ads.

This isn't one of those "pay us to remove ads" deals. It's up to you. That said, obviously if you disable ads we're likely to make less money. So if you choose to do that, we'd appreciate it if you supported us in other ways, such as via our Insider Shop, where you can buy a membership that gets you certain perks, or through our Deals Store, where you can support Techdirt while buying some cool products and services. But, again, this is not a requirement. If you don't like ads on the site, turn them off.

If you've been paying attention to the news lately, there's been all sorts of hand-wringing about "ad blockers", with the hair pulling reaching new levels of craziness a few weeks ago when Apple finally started allowing ad blockers into the iOS app store. Some have been whining about how this is going to kill off the free internet or somehow lead publishers to fall to the side as internet giants like Google, Facebook and Apple colonize the independent web. There have been all sorts of debates about whether or not ad blocking is ethical, which seems like a pointless debate to me, since users don't care. They're going to do it anyway.

I'm planning to do another post in the near future on how the online advertising/publishing ecosystem should react to all of this, but so far they've been reacting... badly. The IAB (Internet Advertising Bureau) has gone so far as to discuss suing over ad blocking, and some sites -- including the Washington Post -- have decided to block access to users who have ad blockers enabled.

We've even been approached by multiple companies who claim to offer a form of ad blocker blocker, that will either insert new ads even when users have ad blockers, or otherwise pester users with ad blockers turned on.

This seems like the exact wrong approach. It's somewhat reminiscent of the way the RIAA and MPAA reacted to the internet challenging their business models. Rather than listen, recognize what the public wanted and adapt, they whined, screamed about ethics and went to court. And how's that worked out for everyone? We've always said that those who adapt to these challenges are likely to do better, and part of that means actually listening to your fans and helping them do what they want. So that's what we're doing: if you choose to disable ads, you just need to go to your preferences and click a button and that should do it.

It's important to note that this is an experiment, though we have no plans to suddenly pull it back (that would be ridiculous). For now, it only applies to network display ads -- or what most people think of as "banner ads." In the future, we may (or may not!) experiment with further ability to customize what you see and what you don't see on the site. Again, there is no expectation here in terms of how you respond, but running this site does cost money -- so we would certainly appreciate it if you also were willing to support the site in other ways, whether you turn off the ads or leave them on. But, on the whole, we're going to allow you to decide how you best want to support this site and trust you to figure out the best way, rather than forcing the choice upon you. Thanks for being a part of this community and we look forward to continuing to deliver interesting stories and conversations going forward.

Filed Under: ad blocking, ads, business models, revenue streams, support, tracking, users
Companies: techdirt