mfioretti: adsense*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

25 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Running TPM absent Google’s various services is almost unthinkable. Like I literally would need to give it a lot of thought how we’d do without all of them. Some of them are critical and I wouldn’t know where to start for replacing them. In many cases, alternatives don’t exist because no business can get a footing with a product Google lets people use for free.

    But here’s where the rubber really meets the road. The publishers use DoubleClick. The big advertisers use DoubleClick. The big global advertising holding companies use Doubleclick. Everybody at every point in the industry is wired into DoubleClick. Here’s how they all play together. The adserving (Doubleclick) is like the road. (Adexchange) is the biggest car on the road. But only AdExchange gets full visibility into what’s available. (There’s lot of details here and argument about just what Google does and doesn’t know. But trust me on this. They keep the key information to themselves. This isn’t a suspicion. It’s the model.) So Google owns the road and gets first look at what’s on the road. Not only does Google own the road and makes the rules for the road, it has special privileges on the road. One of the ways it has special privileges is that it has all the data it gets from search, Google Analytics and Gmail. It also gets to make the first bid on every bit of inventory. Of course that’s critical. First dibs with more information than anyone else has access to. (Some exceptions to this. But that’s the big picture.) It’s good to be the king. It’s good to be a Google.

    There’s more I’ll get to in a moment but the interplay between DoubleClick and Adexchange is so vastly important to the entirety of the web, digital publishing and the entire ad industry that it is almost impossible to overstate. Again. They own the road. They make the rules for the road. They get special privileges on the road with every new iteration of rules.

    ow Google can say – and they are absolutely right – that every month they send checks for thousands and millions of dollars to countless publishers that make their journalism possible. And in general Google tends to be a relatively benign overlord. But as someone who a) knows the industry inside and out – down to the most nuts and bolts mechanics – b) someone who understands at least the rudiments of anti-trust law and monopoly economics and c) can write for a sizable audience, I can tell you this.: Google’s monopoly control is almost comically great. It’s a monopoly at every conceivable turn and consistently uses that market power to deepen its hold and increase its profits. Just the interplay between DoubleClick and Adexchange is textbook anti-competitive practices.

    There’s one way that Google is better than Facebook. When Facebook is getting a bigger and bigger share of the advertising pie, that money is almost all going to Facebook. There are some small exceptions but that’s basically the case. When Google is making insane amounts of money on advertising, it’s not really the same since a huge amount of that advertising is running on websites which are getting a cut. Still, the big story is that Google and Facebook now have a dominant position in the entirety of the advertising ecosystem and are using their monopoly power to take more and more of the money for themselves.

    We’re basically too small for Google to care about. So I wouldn’t say we’ve had any bad experiences with Google in the sense of Google trying to injure us or use its power against us. What we’ve experienced is a little different. Google is so big and so powerful that even when it’s trying to do something good, it can be dangerous and frightening.

    Now in practice all this meant was that two or three old stories about Dylann Roof could no longer run ads purchased through Google. I’d say it’s unlikely that loss to TPM amounted to even a cent a month. Totally meaningless. But here’s the catch. The way these warnings work and the way these particular warnings were worded, you get penalized enough times and then you’re blacklisted.

    Now, certainly you’re figuring we could contact someone at Google and explain that we’re not publishing hate speech and racist violence. We’re reporting on it. Not really. We tried that. We got back a message from our rep not really understanding the distinction and cheerily telling us to try to operate within the no hate speech rules. And how many warnings until we’re blacklisted? Who knows?

    If we were cut off, would that be Adexchange (the ads) or DoubleClick for Publishers (the road) or both? Who knows?

    If the first stopped we’d lose a big chunk of money that wouldn’t put us out of business but would likely force us to retrench. If we were kicked off the road more than half of our total revenue would disappear instantly and would stay disappeared until we found a new road – i.e., a new ad serving service or technology. At a minimum that would be a devastating blow that would require us to find a totally different ad serving system, make major technical changes to the site to accommodate the new system and likely not be able to make as much from ads ever again. That’s not including some unknown period of time – certainly weeks at least – in which we went with literally no ad revenue.

    Needless to say, the impact of this would be cataclysmic and could easily drive us out of business.

    Now, that’s never happened. And this whole scenario stems from what is at least a well-intentioned effort not to subsidize hate speech and racist groups. Again, it hasn’t happened. So in some sense the cataclysmic scenario I’m describing is as much a product of my paranoia as something Google could or might do. But when an outside player has that much power, often acts arbitrarily (even when well-intentioned) and is almost impossible to communicate with, a significant amount of paranoia is healthy and inevitable.
    Voting 0
  2. d (and turned down) syndication offers from two different newspaper syndicates, including one of the biggest in the business, because I wanted full control of True’s publication rights — including its online presence. And as of today, I’ve turned off Google’s “Adsense” service on this site for the same reason: to assert my control.

    Weekly Weird News

    Subscribe Free to Randy's weekly weird news newsletter. Your privacy is his policy.

    Your e-mail address:

    Optional: Where did you hear of This is True?

    Subscriber Counter

    Because I’m sick and tired of Google sending me warnings that my content doesn’t “comply” with their “program policies” — such as their ban on “strategically covered nudity” (um, isn’t all clothing a strategic way to “cover up nudity”?!),“content that may be sensitive, tragic, or hurtful,” or “descriptions of sexual acts.”

    Which may sound perfectly reasonable until you realize just what kind of editorial material it is that they’re sending me these warnings about.

    First, realize that every actual story featured in This is True is a stylized, rewritten summary of an article from a “legitimate, mainstream news outlet” plus our editorial commentary — not tabloidy garbage but real news articles, mostly from daily newspapers and TV news stations reporting about real issues.

    The money Google pays out for showing their ads is just not worth it to continually go through this back-and-forth hassle. I’m giving up on these battles, but I’m declaring victory in the war by the action I took today.
    Declaring Victory

    Actual ad Google has shown on this site.Well, I’ve had it. As of today, I’ve removed all of Google’s ads from this site in favor of sponsorship from companies that have the guts to support True’s thoughtful exploration of the human condition — even if the topic is, at rare times, “sensitive” in nature.

    Note I’m not demanding that Google not have standards. It’s their product, and their name, and I’m sure there are sites trying to make money with Google’s ads on actual sexually exploitive content. But this sure as hell isn’t one of those sites, and they don’t seem capable of discerning the difference between sexual exploitation and actual editorial discussion of real-world issues, nor do they follow their own rules when they put objectionable images on my site.
    In Google’s Place: Sponsorships

    Actual ad Google has shown on this site.Rather than continue to fight this battle with an unthinking, undiscerning 800 lb. gorilla, I’m soliciting sponsorship from companies who appreciate my frank discussion of thought-provoking issues.
    Voting 0
  3. The problem is not that these companies will fail (may they all die in agony), but that the survivors will take desperate measures to stay alive as the failure spiral tightens.

    These companies have been collecting and trafficking in our most personal data for many years. It's going to get ugly.

    The only way I see to avert disaster is to reduce the number of entities in the swamp and find a way back to the status quo ante, preferably through onerous regulation. But nobody will consider this.

    The prognosis for publishers is grim. Repent! Find a way out of the adtech racket before it collapses around you. Ditch your tracking, show dumb ads that you sell directly (not through a thicket of intermediaries), and beg your readers for mercy. Respect their privacy, bandwidth, and intelligence, flatter their vanity, and maybe they'll subscribe to something.

    Or else just sit back, crack open a cool Smirnoff Ice™, and think about more creative ways to fund online publishing.

    Repent, for the end is nigh!
    Voting 0
  4. On the other hand, a company like Spanfeller Media Group caters primarily to women through its site The Daily Meal, so it’s seeing less than 10 percent of its traffic coming through ad blockers.

    Even in that case, CEO Jim Spanfeller said ad blocking will become a concern if the trends continue. And while he admitted that he was “pulling a number out of thin air,” he predicted he’d really start to get worried once ad blocking got up to 25 percent.

    So he’s not just sitting around waiting for that to happen. Spanfeller said he’s already looking at potential workarounds, whether that involves hiding content until people turn off their ad blockers (“But we’ll say it nicer than that”) or asking users to pay if they don’t want to see ads. He acknowledged that those tactics might anger readers — but, well, those are readers he’s not making money from anyway, so he’s not sure they provide much value.
    Voting 0
  5. La cookie law non tocca minimamente il tuo diritto di esprimerti. Tocca solo il tuo preteso diritto di usare gratis strumenti online, in cambio della profilazione del tuo pubblico.
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-16)
    Voting 0
  6. Un sito che ha cookie tecnici, cookie di analisi che non coinvolgono una terza parte, e non ha nessun tipo di cookie profilante, che deve fare?

    Solo inserire tale elemento nell’informativa della sua Privacy Policy.
    Un sito che ha cookie tecnici, cookie di analisi dove la terza parte potrebbe incrociare i dati (non ha garanzia che non lo faccia) e ha anche cookie di profilazione (tipo Google Adsense)?

    Banner e blocco preventivo in quanto la presenza di cookie di profilazione, seppure di terza parte, da sola richiede la presenza del Banner.
    Nel caso in cui si inseriscano cookie profilanti bisogna sempre eseguire il blocco preventivo e chiedere il consenso

    Nel caso in cui si inseriscano cookie profilanti bisogna sempre eseguire il blocco preventivo e chiedere il consenso
    Quali sono le condizioni per cui si intende che l’utente ha dato il consenso?

    Il garante ha chiaramente indicato nel provvedimento dello scorso anno che la prosecuzione della navigazione selezionando un qualsiasi elemento si considera come prestazione del consenso all’uso dei cookie.
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-11)
    Voting 0
  7. Di conseguenza, i gestori dei siti che vogliano continuare a usare questo servizio, dovranno implementare l’informativa breve (il caratteristico banner) e registrare il consenso dell’utente. Coloro che, invece, continuino ad utilizzare il servizio di Google nelle sue modalità di default o lo colleghino addirittura ad altri servizi (come ad esempio Google Adsense) dovranno procedere anche a notificare il trattamento al Garante (pagando un importo di 150 euro).
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-08)
    Voting 0
  8. According to the paper, this wireless exec is considering a plan that involves blocking Google ads on millions of mobile phones “in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues.” His carrier would snuff Google’s ads “just for an hour or a day,” the exec tells The FT, saying this would be enough to bring Google to the negotiating table.

    It’s a ridiculous plan. Blocking ads in this ham-fisted way would spark an enormous uproar among public advocates and in the press on both sides of the Atlantic. After all, it would violate the idea of net neutrality—the notion that all internet traffic should be treated equally—and it may even qualify as censorship. But this is almost beside the point. The bigger issue here is that this plan has exactly zero chance of bringing Google to the table. The web’s most powerful company is not
    about to negotiate away the business model that drives its entire online empire

    “People pay for mobile internet packages so they can access the apps, video streaming, webmail and other services they love, many of which are funded by ads,” Google said in response to The FT story. “Google and other web companies invest heavily in developing these services—and in the behind-the-scenes infrastructure to deliver them.” Google would fight this in court, not at the negotiating table.

    The more realistic possibility is that this European carrier—and others like it—will install ad blocking tech in their data centers and then give smartphones owners the option of turning it on. In terms of net neutrality, such a thing sits in a (slightly) grayer area. The FT says this is on the way as well, reporting that several European carriers are set to deploy ad blocking tech from an Israeli company called Shine. Shine says much the same thing. “The story is accurate,” company spokesman Roi Carthy tells WIRED.
    Voting 0
  9. Tutti gli utenti che avranno visitato il sito prima del 2 Giugno 2015 in questo modo avranno già la preferenza impostata sul sì e potranno ricevere l’installazione di cookie senza limitazioni. Raccogliere quanti più consensi possibile da oggi fino al 2 Giugno 2015 è quindi la chiave per ridurre drasticamente l’impatto della cookie law.

    Dal 2 giugno 2015 in poi sarà poi necessario bloccare i codici che eseguono cookie quando non è ancora stato acquisito il consenso, in linea con quanto richiesto dal Garante. iubenda è quindi al lavoro per rilasciare al più presto un altro set di strumenti funzionali ad adattarsi in modo semplice anche a questo aspetto della normativa.

    Se volete avere più informazioni su come adeguarvi alla cookie law e sugli strumenti che iubenda mette a disposizione, potete consultare la guida alla cookie law ed al kit dedicato, disponibile sul sito di iubenda.

    Qui sotto una tabella riassuntiva che mostra quando è necessario adottare il banner, la cookie policy o il blocco prima del consenso:
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-07)
    Voting 0
  10. Quando poi nella meravigliosa guida “Cookie, istruzioni per l’uso” redatta a 14 mani (Garante, DMA Italia, FedoWeb, IAB Italia, Netcomm, UPA e Iubenda) ho letto che

    Il Provvedimento si applica a tutti i siti, inclusi quelli responsive

    che è un po’ come dire che è reato ammazzare, anche se è giovedì, ho capito che non ce la potevamo fare. Guida interessante, quest’ultima, per tre motivi:

    condensa in 19 pagine quello che il Garante stabilisce in 22 righe
    non affronta né risolve nessuno dei dubbi che il Garante fa sorgere nelle suddette 22 righe
    è stata prodotta consultando tutte la associazioni di categoria interessate, tranne l’unica che rappresenta le professionalità del Web ai sensi della legge 4/2013 (alcuni dicono che la presenza di IWA avrebbe portato la questione delle competenze Web, o della loro mancanza, troppo in primo piano, ma chi scrive si dissocia da una lettura visibilmente partigiana e maliziosa dei fatti).

    Le quali cose potrebbero essere ignorabili se il provvedimento avesse un senso. Ma non ce l’ha. Anziché concentrarsi su coloro che fanno della raccolta e del traffico di dati il proprio business (telco in testa, eh), il Provvedimento prende di mira genericamente “i gestori di siti web”, pomposamente chiamati “Editori”, non distinguendo fra l’autore di un blog, il sito di una PMI che vende materassi, Facebook e Google. E trattando il navigatore Internet come un minus habens che deve essere protetto innanzitutto da se stesso, hai visto mai che capisse cosa fa quando naviga.

    Questa inutile dispersione di energie e di attenzione non è dannosa solo per gli autori di blog e le PMI: mina alla radice anche la ratio stessa del provvedimento. Fra un blog, una PMI e Facebook, per dire, chi è meglio perseguibile, ossia può meglio andare a ingrossare il numero dei “risultati conseguiti”? Chi non avrà altra scelta che pagare o adeguarsi e chi, invece, ha risorse legali per bloccare l’azione del Garante con anni di guerra di posizione?

    Nessuno leggerà gli stupidi banner imposti dal Garante perché nessuno legge nemmeno le Condizioni di Servizio di qualsiasi servizio Web. E questo significa che chi vuole raccogliere dati avrà ancora più libertà di azione, non meno, perché potrà esibire un “consenso informato” che fino a ieri non aveva.

    Diciamo che il tuo sito usi solo Google Analytics. La FAQ del Garante (punto 4) ribadisce che i cookie analytics sono cookie di profilazione, non tecnici, e pertanto devi ottenere il consenso al loro uso prima di installarli sull’apparato dell’utente. Senonché i cookie di analytics si installano nel momento in cui l’utente accede alla pagina.
    Quindi, stando al Garante, il tuo sito, e ogni sito italiano che usi Analytics deve dirottare ogni accesso al sito a una landing page dove l’utente (prima di accedere al sito e prima di installare i cookie analytics) decide se acconsente ai cookie. O questo, o il provvedimento non è scritto in Italiano. Andiamo oltre.
    Supponiamo che, come milioni di persone, istituzioni e PMI tu abbia un banale blog su fornisce gratuitamente il servizio blog, ma si riserva il diritto di inserire nel testo alcune inserzioni pubblicitarie basate, ovviamente, sulla profilazione dell’utente.
    Naturalmente, stando al Garante, anche in questo caso tu “Editore” sei responsabile della gestione dei cookie, anche se è completamente in mano a WordPress e non hai alcun modo di interferire.
    Supponiamo invece che tu voglia strafare, e ti sia addirittura comprato un blog “self-hosted” su cui lucrare avidamente con AdSense. Anche in questo caso, l’utente deve acconsentire ai cookie prima che tu li installi. Ossia su una pagina separata, non soggetta ad analytics né ad AdSense.

    Per finire in farsa, il Garante stabilisce (bontà sua) che tu possa tenere traccia delle preferenze dell’utente tramite un apposito “cookie tecnico”. E qui, sarai d’accordo, raggiungiamo la poesia: perché, sempre secondo il Garante (Provvedimento, premessa 1a ), un cookie è tecnico se è utilizzato
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 3 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: adsense

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle