Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IAB Urges People To Stop "Mozilla From Hijacking the Internet"

timothy posted 1 year,8 days | from the reverse-psychology dept.

Advertising 499

hypnosec writes "In its latest attempt to stop Mozilla from going ahead with its proposed default blocking of third-party cookies in Firefox, the Interactive Advertising Bureau took out a full page ad urging users to stop 'Mozilla from hijacking the Internet.' Through the advert, IAB has claimed that the Firefox maker wants to be the 'judge and jury' when it comes to business models on the web. According to the IAB, Mozilla wants to eliminate the cookies which enable online advertisers to reach the right audience. IAB notes that 'If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience.'"

cancel ×

499 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fud (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552239)

They're just afraid of losing their revenue. Cowards.

Re:fud (5, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552451)

No, they are also afraid of us getting a less diverse Internet experience.

The only time I want your "internet" to differ from mine is when I actively log in.

Re:fud (5, Funny)

plover (150551) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552563)

No, they are also afraid of us getting a less diverse Internet experience.

De more dey advertise, di-verse it gets!

Thank you, I'll be here all the week. Tip your servers.

Re:fud (5, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552459)

Awww... muffin....

Maybe they shouldn't have started using full screen flash ads that you have to click through in order to get rid of, or auto-playing noise.... if they'd stayed relatively innocuous, most Internet users probably wouldn't have bothered to find ways to get rid of them.

Re:fud (5, Informative)

SpicyBrownMustard (1105799) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552567)

> They're just afraid of losing their revenue. Cowards.

Yeah, there you go. The selfish knee-jerk ad-hating with no awareness of reality or real business.

Yes, the ad-supported model isn't ideal, and has been exploited by bad people. But the reality is that you get free content where the percentage of pixels on a page devoted to ads is typically much less than the percentage minutes of ads on free OTA television, and less than the percentage of inches in a $4.95 magazine. Oh boo-hoo.

If you bother to take a deep dive into reality, there are tens-of-thousands of long-tail websites that rely on advertising to remain online and perhaps even pay salaries. They also pay hosting providers who happen have people working for them. Those hosting providers also have their own vendors, and so on. The economic ecosystem extends far beyond that website on which you run ad-blocker and steal their content by breaking the social contract of using their bandwidth and consuming their content in exchange for seeing their ads.

Yeah, this won't be a popular response. But it's true.

Hmm--they're for sale too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552243)

So it's not just ICANN that's gone commercial.

Excellent (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552245)

If the advertisers are bitching that you are taking over the internet, you know you're doing it right. Keep up the good work Mozilla.

Re:Excellent (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552407)

Wait a minute. A couple of days ago the kerfluffle on Slashdot was that Mozilla removed the "disable JavaScript" option from the options screen of Firefox 23.0. I thought that made them evil. Now, they're going to disable third party cookies, so now that makes them good again? I'm so confused.

Why can't they be more like Microsoft, so we can just hate on them 24 x 7?

Re:Excellent (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552609)

Wait a minute. A couple of days ago the kerfluffle on Slashdot was that Mozilla removed the "disable JavaScript" option from the options screen of Firefox 23.0. I thought that made them evil. Now, they're going to disable third party cookies, so now that makes them good again? I'm so confused.

Mozilla removed the menu option to disable Javascript. They aren't removing the option to disable/enable 3rd party cookies, they're just changing what it's set to when you first install it.

Personally, I run NoScript so the Java thing doesn't affect me, and already turn off 3rd party cookies.

Re:Excellent (5, Insightful)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552477)

From TFA: "This particular feature would block all third party cookies by default and users would need to decide for themselves which cookies will be allowed on their systems and which won’t be."

Heaven forbid people will be allow to decide for themselves ?!?!

Re:Excellent (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552505)

Why was I forced to google to find out wtf the IAB is? I'm not an MBA and have nothing to do with the ad industry, and I imagine few other slashdotters do either. It's the international Advertising Bureau.

BTW, good mods on the parent post. The IAB is afraid of us taking OUR internet BACK.

Re:Excellent (3, Funny)

MitchDev (2526834) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552537)

Dear IAB, please die, and fast. We're sick of you and your obnoxious ads.

Mozilla should integrate AdBlock plus or similar (4, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552523)

It's definitely a good sign. I'm still waiting for integration of AdBlock plus. Being in the top 10 installed plugins means that users want this feature.

I'm not even against ads but I don't like being tracked by ads servers getting my IP address, my browser fingerprint ( https://panopticlick.eff.org/ [eff.org] ), and the page I was reading (referrer).

RequestPolicy and NoScript are two more good plugins for controlling what info your browser gives to who.

But there's more hope of this sort of thing getting into a fork, such as GNU IceCat: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ [gnu.org]

Re:Excellent (2, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552575)

Did it not occur to Mozilla that people may want to see ads as gratitude for free content? For example, I've had the option to disable ads on Slashdot for years now. But I know they need revenue to keep this free site up that I enjoy everyday so I don't mind.

Ten Bleeding Hearts (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552247)

Oh, the poor ad industry. Who is going to stop them tracking on us, spying on us, and ramming unwanted crap down our throats with their gaudy, distracting banner ads?

Take your violins elsewhere. You won't find sympathy on the Internet.

Re:Ten Bleeding Hearts (5, Interesting)

kilfarsnar (561956) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552455)

IAB notes that 'If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience.'"

I love it when they try to make it sound like the ads are there for our benefit. Gosh, I wouldn't want to have a less diverse Internet experience!

Re:Ten Bleeding Hearts (4, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552565)

I love it when they try to make it sound like the ads are there for our benefit. Gosh, I wouldn't want to have a less diverse Internet experience!

Hey, I only watch the superbowl for the advertisements just like I only browse the web for the advertisements!

Re:Ten Bleeding Hearts (3, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552613)

Hey, I only watch the superbowl for the advertisements just like I only browse the web for the advertisements!

And you only watch porn for the riveting plots and insightful commentary too, right? ;-)

Re:Ten Bleeding Hearts (1)

fractoid (1076465) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552633)

They probably actually think that the tracking of ads, at least, is good for us. "Hey if they disable browser tracking, the full page click through ads that they see are going to be totally irrelevant! That would really suck for them."

Re:Ten Bleeding Hearts (2)

MitchDev (2526834) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552555)

Oh, the poor ad industry. Who is going to stop them tracking on us, spying on us, and ramming unwanted crap down our throats with their gaudy, distracting banner ads?

Who do they think they are, the American Government, spying on us like that...

Queer definition of "hijacking" (5, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552251)

Apparently what they mean by "Mozilla is hijacking the Internet" is "Mozilla is preventing *us* from hijacking the Internet".

Re:Queer definition of "hijacking" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552369)

And don't forget, that information goes straight to the government as well. And in a few years, when dildos are declared an illegal vice item ex post factor, the government will expose you as a pervert if you dare publicly complain about your 80% Obama-tax rate put in place during his forth consecutive term after he leads the military intelligence coup. For your own good, citizen.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Queer definition of "hijacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552541)

And don't forget, that information goes straight to the government as well. And in a few years, when dildos are declared an illegal vice item ex post factor, the government will expose you as a pervert if you dare publicly complain about your 80% Obama-tax rate put in place during his forth consecutive term after he leads the military intelligence coup. For your own good, citizen.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Of course, you probably didn't mind when your information was going to Bush's government. That's ok, becuz, y'know, Bush is a Repuhblikhan, right? And O-bah-mer isn't.

Re:Queer definition of "hijacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552395)

I think this means I would like several copies of that software please.

Re:Queer definition of "hijacking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552611)

The IAB and all the other disgusting low life tracking scums need to give some more consideration to the creatures they track. Any critter being tracked, once they feel cornered if not before, will turn on the tracker in order to discourage or otherwise eliminate the problem. So things like Firefox etc that help to hide the trail and/or block the tracker are simply a desirable tool, even if they don't do the job completely enough. Once the damn poachers get through Firefox onto my computer, then they are trespassers.

Firefox should ask them if they would like them to have ad blocking etc built in instead of an add on. Proper script blocking, no auto-load flash, better tracker blocking, better flash cookie cleansing, etc, etc, etc. Lots of things Firefox does now that makes it too easy on the trackers/marketers at least till several add ons and an adjusted hosts file is employed by the user.

They are a business (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552255)

and as such will act on what they believe will increase their market share. This basically means that they will do what the users want as often as possible, which on the internet includes not loading every cookie from every third-party on earth. It's not their fault that humans hate businesses.

Full retard (1)

gander666 (723553) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552257)

I think the IAB went full retard with that one...

Dear Advertisers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552259)

Fuck off.

A culling of all the aggregation sites that only exist to serve adverts is well over due. Perhaps search engines will become useful again, rather than wading through expertly placed placeholder pages for shit like Gawker, CNET, ask et al.

Re:Dear Advertisers (4, Interesting)

zakkie (170306) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552647)

Well I run a site (see "homepage" link) that wasn't made for advertising, but it has allowed me, for a brief time at least, to devote my time to researching the information and purchasing materials for researching the information. Much of what you see on the site is online through my effort first. A whole lot is parsed by me from low-quality images that can't be searched, OCRd or otherwise rendered (see what I did there?) useful for people requiring answers. I tried to behave as respectfully towards my users as I could - no extraneous pages to click through, no annoying ads, and I made the decision to serve only text ads. I guess I'm SOL for now, but it would be nice not to be hated for just trying to make ends meet and doing what I love.

From my point of view, the advertisers are the problem for another reason - they have ridiculously high demands for honouring payments, like not only must a user click, they must complete so and so action or the click doesn't count (which leads to ever more prominent, gaudy ads to try and bait users to click), extremely low revenue if the metric is views rather than clicks, etc. There is also zero transparency from their side - a click is valid or not on their say-so alone.

Hopefully this will push ads towards a more peaceful and unobtrusive pay-to-display model - as per any other medium that has ads at all.

"Mozilla From Hijacking the Internet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552267)

Who the fuck put you in charge of spying my preferences? I already block third party cookies so Fuck you IAB.. Unreal how far these idiots will go to create propaganda..

Self-regulatory (4, Insightful)

Imagix (695350) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552269)

Interesting phrase "Right now consumers have control over whether they receive interest-based ads through the Digital Advertising Alliance’s self-regulatory program." Yep, and here's the consumers' response to how well your "self-regulatory" program works. It doesn't. Since the DAA isn't acting in a desirable manner, the consumers are doing this instead. If the advertisers were less obnoxious (and big brother-ish) then the consumers wouldn't resort to drastic measures. Also (as noted in the summary), Mozilla appears to be "default blocking" of third-party cookies. If the consumers found that the benefits of the more "relevant and diverse Internet experience" were worth it, they can still turn them on. Opt-in instead of Opt-Out. Oh, what, nobody would opt-in? Wonder why....

Re:Self-regulatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552423)

Yeah... I think it more likely they will decide to opt out of the browser in favor of one that "just works."

Re:Self-regulatory (1)

alexgieg (948359) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552573)

Yeah... I think it more likely they will decide to opt out of the browser in favor of one that "just works."

Like Safari, which already does this?

Re:Self-regulatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552519)

Mozilla appears to be "default blocking" of third-party cookies. If the consumers found that the benefits of the more "relevant and diverse Internet experience" were worth it, they can still turn them on. Opt-in instead of Opt-Out. Oh, what, nobody would opt-in? Wonder why....

Indeed, have they finally got over the other hissy fit they were having over IE's latest opt out by default approach?

I....... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552273)

Fail to see a problem.

Yeah cry me a river (5, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552279)

Frankly I'm tired of abusive advertising, and entities that disrespect rules and privacy is one of them.

okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552283)

yeah I'll get right on that

i wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552285)

what AdBusters think of this.

I'm happy with that.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552293)

"IAB notes that 'If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience"

I'd rather have a less relevant and diverse internet experience when it comes to marketing to me.

Re:I'm happy with that.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552375)

I'm wondering how they could manage to be less relevant than they are WITH cookie tracking.

And by the very definition of what it's *intended* to do, these directed marketing measures will reduce the diversity of the internet for me, so quite what they're on about here escapes me.

Fork it then. (4, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552295)

Firefox is just an open source browser. If you don't like what they are doing, make a fork called Ad-Fox.
Here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Source_Code/Mercurial [mozilla.org]

Re:Fork it then. (2)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552411)

Oooo! Or a version with all security fixes backed out!

Full page ad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552297)

Full page ad where? The article doesn't mention either. Kinda important when discussing said full page ad, no?

My Response (5, Interesting)

Bigbutt (65939) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552301)

http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/08/12/2011245/new-attack-uses-attackers-own-ad-network-to-deliver-android-malware [slashdot.org]

There are too many stories of ads delivering malware or otherwise compromising someone's computer. If we can reduce the number of systems that are added to a C&C network, we'll all be that much better off.

Of course, for the tin foil hat folks, big brother is watching out for you. :)

[John]

I don't know what's worse... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552303)

That they're actually trying to say that changing a default setting to a more secure option is taking control away from users or that a large portion of people who find out about this will believe them...

Re:I don't know what's worse... (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552359)

The next logical step would be legal harassment, either via lobbying efforts ("Senator, Mozilla's block could cost the US advertising industry hundreds of millions, and potentially tens of billions lost off the economy due to decreased purchasing!") or direct attacks (Sue the Mozilla foundation for interference in contract).

Acronyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552315)

Read the headline and thought why on earth would Allied Irish Banks say that Mozilla is highjacking the Internet. Then read TFA :-O

Getting rid of cookies is okay (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552321)

Netscape created this cookie mess, it's about time someoen took a stand against cookies and Mozilla is the perfect organization.

Get this advertisers: no one wants a personalized visit to pages on the web.

Ads went from text only, to static banners, to animated banners, to Flash-based banners, to multiple banners, to inline graphics, and now with HTML 5 they can even bypass a browser's setting not to show graphics or animations.

Most don't want personalized ads, in fact, most hate ads.

Re:Getting rid of cookies is okay (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552671)

no one wants a personalized visit to pages on the web.

You don't want to log into a website?

Hijacking, yeah sure (1)

Stumbles (602007) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552325)

Mozilla's decision to have ad blocking on by default is the right choice. The only reason the IAB does not like this; people are lazy and often run software with whatever the defaults. There are many, many reports of ad servers coughing up ads linked to malware and said servers being compromised in other ways. The short of it is this; Mozilla has the balls to do the right thing by defaulting that attack vector to off and I salute them. The IAB really has nothing to worry about. There are still plenty of users out there that will install anything, run as root and a host of other insecure activities so their ads will still be seen. The IAB can make any claims they like but that does not mean if my grandma had wheels would she be a wagon.

Re:Hijacking, yeah sure (2)

c0d3g33k (102699) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552667)

Nice post, but not relevant - TFA (and TFS) was about blocking 3rd party cookies, not ads. Turning off 3rd party cookies by default makes it more difficult to track you across the internet (ostensibly to present you with targeted advertising) - it does nothing to eliminate the advertising itself. That would still have to happen via addons or other means.

Too cute for my own good (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552327)

Yeah! I, for one, like going to a site I've never been to and being served women's clothing ads because one time a year ago I clicked on an ideeli ad because it had a cute supermodel.

Send feedback? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552331)

The IAB advertisement includes the text:

Send an email to StopMozilla@aboutads.info to tell Mozilla you don’t want them hijacking cookies on the Internet.

Provided they actually read any text in emails to that address, I don't see why you couldn't send email in support of Mozilla instead.

What is the IAB? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552339)

Note that the IAB is the Interactive Advertising Bureau [wikipedia.org] , so there is your grain of salt.

Bad Writing (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552341)

Who is the IAB? Why do they matter?

I clicked the link and at least I found out who the hell the IAB was. I still don't know why they matter.

"Less Relevant and Diverse" (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552345)

"If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience."

1) No, you dicks will just come up with some new way to spy on us, and we'll come up with a new workaround. So it goes.

2) I'll believe that targeted advertising delivers a 'relevant and diverse experience' the day the ads show me stuff I want to buy but haven't yet, instead of stuff I just fucking bought; as it stands, most "targeted ads" are essentially a redux of the contents of your last Amazon shopping cart.

Re:"Less Relevant and Diverse" (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552527)

2) I'll believe that targeted advertising delivers a 'relevant and diverse experience' the day the ads show me stuff I want to buy but haven't yet, instead of stuff I just fucking bought; as it stands, most "targeted ads" are essentially a redux of the contents of your last Amazon shopping cart.

This is so true. "You just purchased a washing machine. You might like... a washing machine." It probably works for books, movies, and toilet paper - but it's really funny when you buy something big-ticket.

Re:"Less Relevant and Diverse" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552641)

I was shopping for a weather balloon, and a 3rd-party ad for breast enlargement popped up. I fscking fell out of my chair laughing.

*hugs* Mozilla (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552347)

"I can not think of any circumstances in which advertising would not be an evil."
- Arnold Toynbee

Mozilla is saving the Internet (5, Insightful)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552349)

From being hijacked by advertisers.

It's full of stars - I mean people. (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552355)

IAB notes that 'If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience.'

Well, someone will get less relevant, but I don't think it will be the consumers...

IAB? (2)

jeromef (2726837) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552373)

For a moment I though IAB what the IAB [iab.org] ...

installing firefox now (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552377)

time to support them, and go back to their browser.
goodbye chrome.

One concern.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552379)

Right now, it is fairly easy to block cookies and scrips from third party websites. I simply block cookies and don't enable scripts from domains other than the one I am visiting.

If more people start doing this, the websites will just start serving the cookies and scripts for those advertisers, making it harder to block. It will be possible, but to me, it seems it would become much more of a chore to sift through, read, and ultimately block the "offending" bits of the advertising networks.

That said, this full page ad is just the advertisers not wanting to do a whole lot of work to make their shit work again. Of course, they will eventually fix it, and try to offer that as an upgraded feature of their service to websites. Ugh...

Reminds me of another ad (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552387)

My towns newspaper had a full page ad in it from an advertisment agency a while back. It had a picture of North Korea, the "country without advertisment". Basically what they claimed was that, without ads, we would become like them.

Re:Reminds me of another ad (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552559)

It's hard to imagine how a 65ft billboard of their Deal Reader every half-mile is not "advertisement".

Re:Reminds me of another ad (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552629)

My towns newspaper had a full page ad in it from an advertisment agency a while back. It had a picture of North Korea, the "country without advertisment". Basically what they claimed was that, without ads, we would become like them.

Wow, even their propaganda sucks!

Well I'm convinced. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552389)

Going to surf with firefox and code with chrome.Is there a browser that will piss off lawyers and marketing people in one? I want that.

This is what we want (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552391)

According to the IAB, Mozilla wants to eliminate the cookies which enable online advertisers to reach the right audience

You know what there IAB, I don't want your fucking cookies. I don't want your web-bugs. I don't want your shit tailored to me. I don't even want your damned ads.

Let's be honest about this, you wish to gather information about me in order to fulfill your wishes to make money off me.

I'm not prepared to give you that information. I don't care about your business model -- I care about my privacy, and not having douchebags like the IAB know enough about me to do targeted advertising.

When I visit a website, I haven't signed an agreement with you saying I'll see your ads, and provide you with information to track me.

So websites like advertising.com and brightcove and eyereturn ... those are blocked at my firewall. You don't ask my consent to collect information about me, and I don't need your consent to deny it to you.

Stop acting like your'e entitled to this information, or that what you think is going to make you the most money isn't against our best interests.

Now, if Apple could only competently block 3rd party cookies in Safari, I'd have yet another browser I can use to keep these idiots away.

Already do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552397)

I already configure all browsers to prompt for cookies at all times and I only allow the ones I need. This will just save me time. No change in "Internet Experience" observed.

They are welcome to provide alternatives (1)

91degrees (207121) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552403)

Google managed to develop and market Chrome, and get a lot of people interested in it. They make no money directly from Chrome. It exists entirely for the indirect benefit to their advertising revenue.

A consortium of internet advertisers must be able to produce a fair amount of cash. More than woul dbe needed for developing a piece of software (Mozilla seems to have an annual budget of about $2 million which is not a vast amount for a lot of companies). A lot of the technology is freely available and cna be used even in a closed source browser.

All they need to do is make it better than firefox and give people the choice. If one of the improvements is a "relevant and diverse Internet experience" then that's a marketing point. If people actually don't like thid party cookies, then they'll need to make a better browser to encourage pepel to accept the cost. I'm sure that's quite possible.

Aren't there other ways to track? (1)

guanxi (216397) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552405)

Why such a desperate move from the IAB? There are plenty of ways to track users that are just as or more effective, unless I misunderstand something. I don't see the problem.

Either the IAB is tone-deaf or I am; I can't imagine advertisers getting much sympathy from the public. Maybe the advertisers believe their own hype, that their tracking provides such a valuable service for users.

No, no, no, (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552419)

It is your Frigging Adverts that are hijacking the internet.

Opps. I used the word HiJack.
The NSA will be onto me in a trice. Anon just in case.

Hahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552427)

Cry me a river, after harassing people for a decade with ever more intrusive bullshit, closing both eyes and looking the other way while their networks were used as a vector for driveby malware and what not, these people still manage to have the audacity to complain? Take your "valuable content" elsewhere, nobody wants it.

Their ad would be more effective if ... (1)

guanxi (216397) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552429)

Their ad would be more effective if they simply provided instructions for enabling third-party cookies.

How about an add-on, with enhanced tracking for more personalized ads? It would be interesting to see how many people used it.

They took out an ad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552439)

I guess their ad got stuck in my adblocker :)

First... (1)

tchi.keufte (1154325) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552447)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Deep down, they have a point (1)

davidwr (791652) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552453)

End-users who don't like Mozilla's decision are free to use a different browser.

Spam (2)

JeanCroix (99825) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552461)

Yeah, and spammers used to cry that spam filters were breaking the internet too. And infringing their "free speach [sic] rights." But honestly, what parasite welcomes its host's attempt to dislodge it?

No big surprise... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552463)

Professional liars caught lying... news at 11.

Free Advertising for Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552469)

Uau... A full page of advertisement for Firefox... and a good one too! A browser that stops advertisement! Where can I get it? Lol... Kind of stupid, isn't it?

Less relevant and diverse? ROFLMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552481)

Yeah right, just go to amazon.com, and search for a weed trimmer.

All i saw was totally irrelevant adds for weed trimmers over the next couple of weeks because i was just reading review.I bought one the same day from a local box store. All i saw for the next two weeks were ads for weed trimmers. Totally irrelevant since i had already purchase one.

People Vs. Military Industrial complex (1)

lixns21 (1887442) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552483)

I am from the industry and think the IAB's stand is poppycock. I firmly believe and have done ever since I learned a lot about targeting using cookies etc that the choice should be with the end users. It is totally unfair that the options exist currently, but only for the most savvy users. This current hullabalo shows that all the current initiatives such as the NAI http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/ [networkadvertising.org] are all spin. Also, there already exists methods whereby companies store cookies for individuals on the cloud where the end user has no control. I think the online ad industry already 10+ years old has become like the MPAA or RIAA (always wondered: *why* does an organisation even exist that has the name records in it). The focus of the innovation has to be how to deliver targeted content WITH user consent. Not add more layers and tracking beacons and then selling it all to the NSA.

I find the current state bad (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552487)

Look, I'm one of those people that doesn't mind relevant, unobtrusive advertising. Yea, my mind is trained to just ignore and not even register online advertising, but sometimes when I'm looking for something or researching new products, I go down the advertiser link holes.

But right now with the third party tracking, I get *worse* advertisements than I used to. It's ridiculous. Just yesterday I went to Levenger.com and bought some refills for a notebook. Literally, over 90% of the ads that I see now are Levenger or Levenger's competitor's ads. There doesn't need to be any Levenger advertising, I just bought from them! I can actually do a search for computer motherboards right now and ads for Levenger paper come up.

If I click a link and look at a simple product on Amazon, that product's ads track me and stay by my side no matter where I am until I look at some other item. Right now, online ads are waaaay too far on the tracking side; I hardly ever get contextual ads any more. It's all about getting me to buy whatever was the last page with a buy button on it that I navigated to, even if I already bought it! Talk about dumb.

So, yea, I think that the state of internet advertising might actually get better without these trackers. They might have to actually detect what I'm interested in and serve up relevant ads, rather than plastering every page with a freakin' ad for paper that I already bought. Kudos Mozilla. I might just switch back from Chrome...

Screw the IAB (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552495)

These buffoons are the ones who highjacked the internet long ago. Mozilla will allow us to take it back.

It's been a long time, but (1)

azav (469988) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552503)

It's good to see the slashdot effect working again at full steam.

Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552507)

From IAB:

"This particular feature would block all third party cookies by default and users would need to decide for themselves which cookies will be allowed on their systems and which won’t be."

Hell yeah. I'm not smart enough to decide witch sites I trust. Most likely, all cookies will be turned off by default here, except the essential ones =)

AwPesome fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552509)

ultimately, we play partCies the oaf playing your [nero-online.org]. These early And what supplies Enjoy the loud anything can track of where

Mozilla instead of Firefox? (2)

JoeyRox (2711699) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552531)

Most users of Firefox probably never notice or remember Mozilla in the name. Ironic considering how advertisers are supposed to be so savvy at targeting consumers.

Safari Did it First (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552539)

Where's the full-page ad against Apple? Oh, right, better to not take on a billion-dollar behemoth and run ads against the nonprofit giving people more control over their Internet browsing experience.

Good on Mozilla! To hell with Ad-leeches. (2)

RanceJustice (2028040) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552543)

If the feculent leeches in the Internet advertising/data mining industry (and/or social media industry, for that matter) object, this is a great indication that Mozilla is doing the right thing. On the backs of Google, DoubleClick, Facebook, and a host of other advertising and data mining organizations, the Web has become infected with a continually encroaching plague of bots, cookies, tracking, and other privacy obliteration techniques that become even more and more egregious as time continues. Hostile and persistent, pervasive and privacy-obliterating, advertising on the Internet has gotten out of hand. Monetizing "You" has become the primary target and is completely unfettered by privacy regulations in the US (though, the EU is at least a little better in this regard). The data mined and sold by these advertisers has become so all-encompassing and we've all see the ramifications thereof.

If blocking third party cookies is such a major blow to these advertisers, so much the better. Crying over lacking the ability to follow users with invisible 1-pixel trackers across their entire browsing experience is insulting. Users can and should always opt in to their information being stored elsewhere or allowed to be tracked - I'd be quite satisfied if Firefox's default turned off cookies all together. While I'd like to see more of the feature set of AdBlock Plus/Edge, Disconnect, HTTPS Everywhere, BetterPrivacy, and NoScript actually implemented natively in Firefox with sane defaults, this is a great first start. Mozilla has again proved that products like Firefox and Thunderbird are some of the only major, "Newbie to Guru Usable", cross-platform FOSS programs of their kind that are built with the user's experience as the primary goal, rather than to cater to some sort of data mining or advertising network. Sane defaults that place the choice to reveal information and do so in a way that ensures the user is fully informed of the options, is paramount. Anything that can be done to cut the lifeline of these disgusting, shameless, money-grubbing entities is a benefit, and so I applaud Mozilla and hope they are not dissuaded by this temper-tantrum thrown by these corrupt, petulant children.

judge and jury (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552551)

The Mozilla foundation has yet to do anything that makes me suspect they have nefarious intentions. I cannot hardly begin to say the same about advertising or marketing people. Most or sleazier than that underside of a toilet seat. If Mozilla is causing problems for these people, stfu. I'm behind Mozilla 100%.

irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552557)

"It appears that Mozilla wants to be “judge and jury” for business models on the Net."

uhh oh, or maybe they just provided one business model and your getting butt hurt because the people love it?

"Right now consumers have control over whether they receive interest-based ads through the Digital Advertising Alliance’s self-regulatory program."

OR consumers have the control when the decided which browser to use and to use the browser cookie blocking feature.. Mozilla gives ME the control. keep it up everyone that contributes to the project..

with everything going on in the media and the political circus maybe people would start smartening up that people dont want the centralization of power, we want the decentralization of power. we want the individual choice.. after all this is what the IAB has been selling us for years, they sell choice, choice over clothes, choice over cars, they bring to us choice but only on things they can make money off of.

Businesses really need to learn that while it is important to retain business it is also important to retain this through highlighting your pros, not weighing on someones cons. im sure anyone over the age of 12 understands that when an entity (political or commercial) starts openly attacking someone else they are nothing more than jealous and cant find ways to differentiate them selves as better so they must bring their opponent down because they cannot stand up to the challenge.

full page ad? (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552561)

I didn't see it.

(thats the joke)

More power to Facebook and Google (1)

hendrik_v (999388) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552579)

One side of this is that (especially) Facebook and Google will gain more traction because of this, at the expense of other, smaller, ad-networks and national JIC's.

Keep up the good work (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552583)

Keep up the good work Mozilla :) 3

If you mean... (1)

TrentTheThief (118302) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552605)

When marketers say "a less relevant and diverse Internet experience," it really means "you won't see annoying, tailored ads for shit you don't want or need."

I don't see your damned ads anyway. I use AdBlockPlus and I also block third-party cookies. But since there are less net-aware people out there who don't have the knowledge to mess around with addons or anything other than the default settings, I support Mozilla: Block the cookies from those asshat marketers and help out the less techie people who are on the net.

Q: What do you call 10,000 dead marketers at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?

A: A good beginning.

Here is the full ad text (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,8 days | (#44552623)

"Finding stuff you’re interested in on the Internet is
easy these days. That’s because advertisers can tailor
ads to speci c interests through the responsible and
transparent use of cookies.

But Mozilla wants to eliminate the same cookies that
enable advertisers to reach the right audience, with
the right message, at the right time. Mozilla claims it’s
in the interest of privacy. Truth is, we believe it’s about
helping some business models gain a marketplace
advantage and reducing competition. Right now
consumers have control over whether they receive
interest-based ads through the Digital Advertising
Alliance’s self-regulatory program.

It appears that Mozilla wants to be “judge and jury” for
business models on the Net.

If cookies are eliminated, it is clear to us that consumers
will get a less relevant and diverse Internet experience.
Send an email to StopMozilla@aboutads.info to tell Mozilla
you don’t want them hijacking cookies on the Internet."

Nostalgia, when IAB meant something else (1)

louarnkoz (805588) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552673)

Not so long ago, when we heard a reference to "the IAB," what came to mind was the "Internet Architecture Board" (http://www.iab.org/). That was the place were Postel or Cerf contributed... Times have changed.

Dear IAB (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | 1 year,8 days | (#44552685)

I use Adblock Plus and Noscript. Not because I have something in particular against advertising in general, but because I've personally seen more than enough abusive practices to put an end to it myself.

Ya know, like drive-by malware through ad networks.

Until the industry adopts some real standards and actively polices them, then you, IAB and everyone else, can fuck right off.

--
BMO

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>