mfioretti: social networks* + online advertising*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

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

  1. It's the notion that in a free society, anyone should be able to read, learn, and debate without being monitored and recorded. Americans have long cherished this freedom, but author Neil Richards says it's being threatened by pervasive online tracking of digital habits and social media discussions.

    intellectual privacy is for anyone with an intellect – which is to say, it’s for everyone. Intellectual privacy is about needing to have protections from being watched and interfered with when we’re making up our minds about the world – when we’re reading, surfing the Web, talking on the phone, and sending e-mail to confidants. It's a way of understanding why people get so annoyed when the government and companies monitor our lives, and it was perhaps the greatest interest threatened by the surveillance Edward Snowden leaked. Although intellectual privacy is incredibly important, the right hasn't been well understood. We didn’t have to think about our beliefs, desires, and fantasies as matters of intellectual privacy until recently when we started interacting over digital devices that keep long and detailed records of our thoughts and reading habits.

    Beyond government surveillance, is anything else undermining intellectual privacy?

    Richards: Yes, corporations are. A few years ago Facebook offered “social reading” and automatically shared things we clicked on and read with our friends. People ended up accidentally disclosing embarrassing things. Amongst all the shame, the trend died a secret and unheralded death. But while this obvious case of intellectual privacy infringement is behind us, we’re still stuck with the fuel that keeps Facebook and so many other companies going: Internet advertising.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passco...ivacy-and-how-yours-is-being-violated
    Voting 0
  2. Metafilter came from two or three internets ago, when a website's core audience—people showing up there every day or every week, directly—was its main source of visitors. Google might bless a site with new visitors or take them away. Either way, it was still possible for a site's fundamentals to be strong, independent of extremely large outside referrers. What's so disconcerting now is that the new sources of readership, the apps and sites people check every day and which lead people to new posts and stories, make up a majority of total readership, and they're utterly unpredictable (they're also bigger, always bigger, every new internet is bigger). People still visit sites directly, but less. Sites still link to one another, but with diminishing results. A site that doesn't care about Facebook will nonetheless come to depend on Facebook, and if Facebook changes how Newsfeed works, or how its app works, a large fraction of total traffic could appear or disappear very quickly.

    Of course a website's fortunes can change overnight. That these fortunes are tied to the whims of a very small group of very large companies, whose interests are only somewhat aligned with those of publishers, however, is sort of new. The publishing opportunity may be bigger today than it's ever been but the publisher's role is less glamorous: When did the best sites on the internet, giant and small alike, become anonymous subcontractors to tech companies that operate on entirely different scales? This is new psychological territory, working for publishers within publishers within publishers. The ones at the top barely know you exist! Anyway, internet people, remember this day in five years: It could happen to you, whether you asked for it or not.
    http://www.theawl.com/2014/05/the-new-internet-gods-have-no-mercy
    Voting 0
  3. A while back I removed all of the social media buttons from my sites. Every single one of them went right into the trash heap where they belong. Some people would no doubt think this is crazy. After all, everybody else has them so shouldn’t I have them too? No, not all. I found they weren’t worth having at all.

    Here’s why I got rid of all of them:

    Low traffic from social media services
    I took a look at my reports and I found that the traffic from all of the social media services was very low, particularly compared to what I get from Google and other search engines. Despite having all the usual social media buttons on my pages, the traffic I got just wasn’t worth keeping them.

    Slower page loads
    One really awful consequence of the social media buttons is much slower page loads. I found that they added anywhere from 2 – 4 seconds at least to my page loads. That is very, very bad on the web and can result in higher bounce rates.

    I tested my sites with the various page loading speed tools that are available and saw a huge difference in how they performed without the obnoxious social media buttons.
    http://jimlynch.com/internet/the-soul...ng-pestilence-of-social-media-buttons
    Voting 0
  4. Limitiamoci a Facebook pubblicando le foto dei gattini coccolosi o a veicolare, per comodità dello strumento, i nostri post agli amici. Se non cambierà radicalmente policy e condotte non ne vale la pena investire un solo euro in pubblicità.
    http://www.massimomelica.net/facebook...zza-merita-investimento-pubblicitario
    Voting 0
  5. Facebook makes money by showing its members ads targeted based on what they reveal about themselves whilst using the site. But research from Pew Internet published this week shows that many teenaged users of the site deliberately hide what they’re really talking about using coded language and images. It’s a practice teens use to take control of their online privacy, but also one that could make pitching relevant ads at the group more difficult.

    Pew found that some 58 percent of teens intentionally use inside jokes or obscure references to conceal what they’re talking about, with older teens doing it more than younger teens. Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd has studied this activity for years – she calls it social steganography and says its becoming more common – and wrote a response to Pew’s new research in which she explains the practice
    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/...medium=social-post&utm_source=twitter
    Voting 0
  6. La competizione è ai massimi livelli, ovunque. Da qualsiasi parte ti giri, tutto già c’è, tutto è stato già fatto, tutti hanno già parlato di tutto prima di te, tutti sono arrivati prima di te. Parrebbe quasi che la blogosfera sia giunta a saturazione. Google non ti aiuta più, né con le SERP, né con le News, né con AdSense. Funzionano solo i grandi circuiti. Se non scrivi su l’Huffington Post non ti legge nessuno (pare, ma così non è: prova a scrivere male di qualcuno, e vedi che succede). Lo stesso “business” (se così vogliamo chiamarlo) SEO è in crisi, perché Google cambia continuamente le carte in tavola e quelle che fino a ieri sembravano certezze diventano miseri naufragi.

    anche i social network stanno osservando cali di frequentazione, specie da parte dei giovani e dei teenager. Lo spiega bene Webnews e i continui cambiamenti, aggiungo, tolgono ai giovani le (pseudo)certezze a cui periodicamente si appoggiano.

    se la maggior parte delle persone dimostra di gradire i blog o i siti di Gossip più di ogni altro tema, questo non significa affatto che seguire quell’onda sia la scelta migliore per favorire la crescita, anzi, si tratterebbe di un gesto strumentale, il cui unico risultato sarebbe quello di favorire un ulteriore appiattimento della materia grigia.

    bisogna tornare ad amare l’apprendimento, a sviluppare la critica, a confrontare ciò che si sa con ciò che sanno altri. Non necessariamente per “emergere”, ma per il semplice gusto di farlo, perché è cibo genuino per la mente.

    Simili prospettive non potranno mai sgorgare da un social network, né da WhatsApp, né da un centro commerciale, né da una rivista (o sito) di Gossip, né da un sistema educativo (a tutto tondo: famiglia, scuola, società) fallimentare, ansimante e ridotto sul lastrico, né da un sistema politico che di veramente politico non ha più nulla, né da un sistema legislativo e giudiziario al limite del collasso, né da media commerciali concentrati sul consumo, né da un momento storico di generale smarrimento e sbigottimento.

    Confrontarsi con gli altri propri simili all’interno della polis, oggi che è diventata una e-polis, è poi cosa che può avvenire su un blog, tranquillamente: il blogger ti parlerà di un libro (degno di questo nome) che ha letto o di un corso che ha frequentato e rifletterà “ad alta voce”. Tu leggerai, ti farai la tua idea, ci penserai sopra uno, due, tre giorni, e solo allora lascerai il tuo commento.

    i blog che “danno notizie” stanno finendo. Sono multiautoriali, si uniscono in circuiti per aumentare la loro forza e concorrere con i media tradizionali. Ci riescono, ma proprio il fatto che ci riescono genera ancor più smarrimento nei lettori, che alla fine si “rifugiano” sempre più nei media tradizionali, unica (teorica) garanzia di correttezza dell’informazione di fronte a un’offerta sovrabbondante, ridondante e ormai priva di reale rilevanza. Una tendenza pericolosa, perché offre ai media troppe certezze delle quali, invece, non dovrebbero disporre affatto per avere stimoli sufficienti a mantenersi di alto livello.
    http://nbtimes.it/opinioni/14904/futu...della-blogosfera-crisi-sistemica.html
    Voting 0
  7. In essence, Twitter believes it can no longer be a perfectly open platform if it hopes to find a way to make money. The company apparently believes that some restrictions will need to be placed on 3rd party uses of its API if the firm hopes to be able to attract and monetize enough eyeballs.

    While no one is sure whether that strategy will work, Medjaoui doesn’t even want the experiment to go forward. Building on Zittrain, he proposes the following approach to API neutrality:

    ...

    While many would agree that API neutrality represents a fine generic norm for online commerce and interactions, Zittrain implies it should be a legal standard to which online providers are held. He even alludes to the possibility of applying the common law principle of adverse possession more broadly in these contexts.
    http://techliberation.com/2012/09/21/...eration+(Technology+Liberation+Front)
    Voting 0
  8. If a woman in New Orleans changes from "single" to "engaged" Facebook can offer her up to a bridal retailer or caterer in the Big Easy. If she lists her MBA from Loyola and has "liked" pages for, say, Saks Fifth Avenue and Mercedes Benz, you get a fuller picture of how much she might be willing to spend.

    Before Facebook, marketers relied on online surveys or focus groups. Now, they can reach the customer directly.

    The average Facebook user has 229 friends. When that user likes a product or company's ad, it serves as an endorsement to those friends from someone they know and, presumably, trust.

    When I say, I like Einstein bagels, and then one of my friends sees that ad, they're going to see my name in that ad. When that happens, I'm over 60% more likely to remember the ad, and I'm over four times more likely to purchase the product. This is word of mouth at scale. This is what, as marketers, we've always been trying to bottle up and find a way to take advantage of. And the social Web is finally allowing us to do that."
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/16/tec...on_technology+%28RSS%3A+Technology%29
    Voting 0
  9. The days of unrestrained Internet downloads and open access content are approaching the end. People are the Internet's biggest content owners, they want their share of value, ISPs want more control over services to provide their customers, and the share of revenue ordinarily attributed to website publishers is uncertain because content owners want to get paid. The name of the game is changing as ISPs and carriers begin to realize their technical prowess to enhance user services, grab control over website advertising, transform themselves into the copyright bankers of the future by compensating content owners and shift the equitable result. Deep packet inspection and packet profiling is a sea change for ISPs; their tide is coming in and King Content is floating in on it.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-b...eister/is-content-king_b_1544290.html
    Voting 0
  10. Facebook is not only on course to go bust, but will take the rest of the ad-supported Web with it.

    Given its vast cash reserves and the glacial pace of business reckonings, that will sound hyperbolic. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

    At the heart of the Internet business is one of the great business fallacies of our time: that the Web, with all its targeting abilities, can be a more efficient, and hence more profitable, advertising medium than traditional media. Facebook, with its 900 million users, valuation of around $100 billion, and the bulk of its business in traditional display advertising, is now at the heart of the heart of the fallacy.

    Facebook has convinced large numbers of people that its magic will reinvent advertising in a heretofore unimaginably profitable way, or that the company will create something new that isn't advertising, which will produce even more wonderful profits.

    Facebook is mired in the same relentless downward pressure of falling per-user revenues as the rest of Web-based media. The company makes a pitiful and shrinking $5 per customer per year.

    Facebook's business only grows on the unsustainable basis that it can add new customers at a faster rate than the value of individual customers declines. It is peddling as fast as it can. It gets much worse on mobile devices, because it is vastly harder, on a small screen, to sell ads and profitably monetize users.
    http://www.technologyreview.com/web/40437/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-05-22
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 2 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: social networks + online advertising

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle