Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Microsoft to Pitch New Web Browser As Pro-Privacy?:
Story here.
|
ContactSubscribeFeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
Or, to use vernacular that Microsoft was once quite a bit more familiar with, it has merely decided to "cut off [Google's] air supply."
I used the word "pitch" intentionally.
Why am I reminded of Thomas Penfield Jackson's rather infamous observations about Microsoft's veracity that became rather more public during the U.S. v. Microsoft appeal than he had intended?
(with my apologies for using Wikipedia as a crutch - it was a lot faster than citing the appellate record and a series of post-trial interviews, of course).
Rather than fix the bug, they decided that they would call it a privacy feature.
Go figure.
--PtM
My own interest is in public perceptions of the value of privacy, not Microsoft as a corporation. So I think it's interesting that microsoft would use that as a pitch, no matter how evil and Satanic the company may be.
Microsoft has been doing some new things. For example, you can download for free Visual Studio Express which includes Visual Basic, C# and C++. This is a very good student level programing package and they support it, all free.
Microsoft missed the bandwagon by about 2 years.
Right now, on the version of this page presented to me, there is an ad for a cell-phone and an ad for flowers. I don't need either of those things -- my time and the advertisers' money are therefore wasted. Much better to show me something I might need or want or care about.
Full disclosure: yes, I am in the business of creating space for targeted ads (and proud of it). I am not particular worried about Microsoft's proposed "feature" -- those guys couldn't pour piss out of a boot if instruction were printed on the sole.
Presupposing that you want to see ads at all (which most of us don't), what makes you think I want my kids (who can very easily see the screen over my shoulder) seeing things related to websites that I might visit after they go to bed?
It has been years since I had to put up with one of those "catch the monkey and win a prize" flash advertisements that runs across the top bottom and sides of every modern web page. Good riddance.
As a former software person, I teach everyone I can about how to disable all advertising and marketing software. The sooner we can put all of these people out of business and make it seem like a complete waste of their money to advertise via images, flash or email, the better off the internet will be.
When I want to buy something, I can search for it with a search engine. I don't need an advertisement to tell me I need something. Piss off.
Dangerous websites use scripts to catch your information and send it to where you don't want it; blocking scripts is the key to safe browsing.
I refuse to use IE7 by the way - Firefox is the only way to go in my opinion.
Remember that it isn't completely free to block ads. I have to:
a) notice that the site I am viewing is behaving oddly and become aggravated to some degree
b) spend about 10 seconds of effort to find all the html elements and javascript that comprise the offending advertisement and enter a pattern to block it
c) reload the page to make sure I got rid of it
d) repeat b and c until it is all gone and I can go back to reading the page
This means that an advertisement that I only notice when I am looking around the screen for help finding something (to buy perhaps) will probably never get blocked because it never crosses the threshold of interfering with what I intend to do on that page. Unfortunately this is the exception. Things I remember blocking:
-intellitext advertising that makes it so that any time your mouse wanders over particular words in an article, a window pops up and blocks what you were reading to advertise something related to that word.
-popups that force you to close them to continue seeing the page.
-flashing, lewd or noisy flash animations.
-anything that is known to track me to facilitate the sending of spam
As a libertarian social experiment the internet is pretty neat. Through the wonders of software configuration, each of us can limit the ability of others to annoy us far more effectively than the government ever could, assuming it would adopt the policy any particular one of us preferred.
My working assumption is that online advertisements, even ones targeted at my interests, are misleading and untrustworthy. If I want to purchase something online, I google and then check several different vendors. I would never, ever, click through an ad, even for something that I already wanted to purchase.
Thanks, everyone, for all the suggestions of useful Firefox extensions. Tonight, I'll be downloading the ones I don't already have.
Yes, we do. Or, more precisely, many of the people who currently provide free content online need ad revenue to pay for their web space. No ads = greatly reduced free stuff.
Or more precisely, you want all the things that online ads can bring you. Google, comes to mind and most other useful online service, including my own fine site (which I will decline to name here).
Moreover, a perfectly targeted would only reach the people who did want to see it. In any case, the question the choice isn't between ads and no ads, but between random ads and ads for stuff you might want.Yeah, they probably don't want you to see where they're going either.
If you are worried about keeping your browsing habit private from other people using the same machine, targeted ads and the cookies that support them are the least of your problems. I was once using the computer at the home of a good friend -- a fifty-ish law professor, no-one on this site, of course -- and typed in the first few characters of a URL when the autocomplete helpfully suggested I might want to return to "nakedcollegegirls.com" or some such.
You leave your tracks all over a computer and if you don't want your family members to know you are visiting porn sites, searching for a divorce attorney, researching STDs, whatever, yes, don't use IE, use Firefox, and investigate the Profile Manager and the -P option.
Really? Where do you think Mozilla, the creator of Firefox, gets its funding....Google = ads. Nothing is free.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9776759-46.html
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.