I'm currently exploring using WebBundles to serve multiple ads in response to a single ad request, because it allows ads to be served more efficiently while keeping them secure and private, but ad blockers would still prevent the ad js from loading before the ad request was ever sent.
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google)
Why is this a use-case that I as a web user should care about? Frankly, I don't find it very comforting that an article raises privacy concerns, and an engineer working on ads at Google responds with "these concerns are misguided; I'm exploring this technology to make ads better."
If you block ads, then my work will have no effect on you. If you do not block ads, then my work decreases bandwidth usage and makes it harder for ads to deface each other.
> I don't find it very comforting that an article raises privacy concerns, and an engineer working on ads at Google responds with...
The article describes privacy concerns, but those concerns are based on a misunderstanding of what WebBundles make easier. Specifically, they're concerned about URL randomization, which is no easier with bundles.
Random URLs are just an example of the capability they are not the fundamental problem
I can also do that on my server based on whatever criteria I want, just by returning different content. How is this significantly different than the problem you've brought up?
At least, that's my understanding.
If they're served by a 3rd-party then you block on domain or address to the bundle just like today. If it's 1st-party then they can already randomize every URL.
> Julia and I believe that one of the best ways to make the world better is to donate to effective charities.
I would argue that the best way to make the world better is to First do no harm. Making a large income by pushing ads at Google doesn't uphold that rule, in my opinion. And perhaps this person's sensitivity around their job is why they feel the need to publicly list their donations, rather than giving quietly. Public philanthropy has often been used as a way to try to deflect criticism from how the money was first made.
I can't speak for Mr. Kaufman, but I imagine he shares this information publicly not to brag, but to encourage a new norm of publically donating a significant portion of one's income to effective charity.
He and his partner may have literally saved hundreds of lives with their contributions over the last few years alone.
What have you done for the world lately? For myself, the answer is: not enough.
If I thought my work in advertising was harmful I would stop. I think it's probably slightly positive: https://www.jefftk.com/p/value-of-working-in-ads
> perhaps this person's sensitivity around their job is why they feel the need to publicly list their donations, rather than giving quietly
I've been listing my donations publicly since before I started working in ads. I wrote https://www.jefftk.com/p/make-your-giving-public when I was working on open source software that rewrote web pages so they would load faster.
Right, I'm claiming the post is wrong, and that this is not something WebBundling makes (newly) possible or makes easier.
This message brought to you by Subway: Eat Fresh.
So fuck that argument.
Anyways, the only "theory" is that costs need to be paid, and you can't have no ads and no payments and expect that to work.
Hence ad blockers, without a shred of remorse.
My local newspaper is dying and I don't feel sorry for them.
Why exactly am I paying Google for again? Remind me: Is it so that I don't see ads, or so that the artists are properly compensated?
I'm asking because my bank account is lighter, Google has made records profits, but neither of the two outcomes above has occurred...
Technically the Youtube subscription is for the platform itself and extra features, and a little bit of the money is shared with creators in return for removing the ads. They actually make less with Youtube premium users, and if you paid them the same as their ad revenue then your total subscription would be much higher.
"Companies therefore must run advertisements to make content because a significant portion of the target audience does not want to pay for it" does not follow from that.
There are many industries that typically do not run advertisements for their content - book publishing comes to mind here - and they seem to get by just fine.
90% of everything is crap, so 90% of entertainment disappearing because production houses and producers stop whoring themselves out to Madison Ave and big brands is a net positive for society. Make the 10% of things you can get funded by the target audience without having to mentally and emotionally manipulate them (which is what advertising is) and you'll still have too much content for the average person to consume.
Advertising is immoral, and advertising to children is both immoral and explicitly evil.
This is true for most online content. For various reasons, content that's not music or video has an assumption of being free. Book publishing is not comparable.
> "90% of everything is crap"
Maybe, but everyone has a different 90% so there's no "average". Content is made to match demand and there's something for everyone.
> "mentally and emotionally manipulate them ... Advertising is immoral"
Everything is manipulation and influence. Recommending something to your friends is a form of advertising (and even officially called "word of mouth marketing"). I agree that advertising should have better safeguards since it's influence for a price, but calling it immoral gets into some strange philosophical territory that doesn't accomplish anything productive.