I honestly can’t think of an suitable title

I believe that these creators can opt out of midstream ads but choose to leave them in to make more money. Some like mrpete have skipped them so fans do not have to endure them.

I donate to several channels that I like. My support then goes to where I want it to.

regards

I use Adblock plus and it works well with youtube, some sites can detect it but you can switch adblock off for that page/site if required (needs to be switched off for this forum)

Don't forget there are a large number of information sites that rely on income from adverts to maintain there presence on the interweb!

Edited By Rockingdodge on 17/12/2020 10:43:51

I don't object to advertising, I just choose to avoid it wherever I can, but I do object to people covertly harvesting information about my browsing and shopping habits, and even more strongly object to people harvesting information from my contact list, etc.

I try to keep things as secure as possible but privacy doesn't really exist any more in the 'digital age'.

It goes well beyond just advertising though;

"Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) will move all UK users onto US user agreements when Brexit takes place to escape from Europe’s privacy laws."

There's lots of sources of this story, but here's the one that supplied that particular quote.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/936707/facebook-to-move-uk-users-to-looser-us-privacy-rules-post-brexit-936707.html

Note that this probably won't just affect Facebook; remember the various website popups asking you if you want to share your browsing data, permit cookies etc.
They were due to GDPR requirements, and still will be if websites wish to remain accessible to EU countries; Post Brexit, I might be a little concerned if I don't get the popup on a new website.

Bill

Pages 2&3 of my daily newspaper are always full page ads, but I know they are there, so I just turn straight to page 4. No idea who is advertising what. Complete waste of paper and the advertiser's money

Thanks for the censorship .... whomever. My (very) terse comment might have been judged political (and against the rules) by a very strong imagination, but certainly no more so than this thread in general and most of its comments. Not to mention other threads in these forums.

And certainly (and obviously) there was nothing personal aimed at anyone here.

I remain at a loss ...

+1 For that as well on Firefox. Desktops Forever! However please note that those who use BT TV they are reducing the number of stations you can receive or you can cancel contracts without penalty in the next 30days unless you pay a load more for the VIP pack.

BUT we have become aware that every time we change a channel there is never direct access to the programme there is always a package of a number of adverts regardless of random timings.

Edited By Ian B. on 18/12/2020 07:53:10

It’s interesting to see how this discussion has developed ... but I am surprised to see mention of Newspaper and TV advertisements [which, currently, are not personalised]

Mark Zuckerberg‘s objection is to Apple offering its users the ability to opt-out of tracking, if they so desire !

MichaelG.

.

.

As examples of tracking, Apple gives:

1. Displaying targeted advertisements in your app based on user data collected from apps and websites owned by other companies.
2. Sharing device location data or email lists with a data broker.
3. Sharing a list of emails, advertising IDs, or other IDs with a third-party advertising network.
4. Placing third-party software development kits (SDKs) in apps that combine data with others to target advertising.

Quite simply, dont use it. After a bad experience on Farcebook I have never used it since nor any other such like soshull meeja. It has no impact on honest decent human life to shun such places.

But of course honest decent standards of human behaviour are on the decline. Much due to these abuses of technology.

I do my best to limit what these few huge American companies gain from me.

My portable 'phone is basic, called "3G" but I don't know what difference that makes. More to the point it is normally turned off most of the time. Any tracker trying to understand my movements might wonder why I am near or at what might be home frequently but randomly for most of the year (normally!), then occasionally somewhere obscure 300 miles away for just 5 minutes at an obscure time and date.

I turn off the assorted non-functional cookies as far as possible. 'Outlook' shows a list of its clients, all with meaningless names giving no hint of trade, but some are IT consultancies. This is on a secondary account I rarely use now anyway, but I always turn the lot off.

I have given up on Google and YouTube, thanks to their new, complicated barriers; and have refused to use Facebook and its ilk completely from their start. As for " smart 'speakers " with silly names (two-way radio Internet links): not ruddy likely.

Also, limit on-line buying in frequency, variety and type, and no on-line banking. So with little or no useful location-tracking either, the Internet profile I must present should be worthless to the big advertising-agencies and IT companies.

'

Advertisements per se are not the problem.

Those who criticise their publication merely for being not personally interesting, forget two things.

Firstly that without advertising the magazines and newspapers would cost far more; and fora like this would have to charge us. Secondly, that despite their protests they do follow advertising in one way or another, even if voluntarily when searching for a wanted product or service.

The main problems now are the ruthless pressure to read advertisements; and the so-called "personalised" ad - a concept as ugly as the Americanism itself - and its implications and modus operandi.

.

I’m not sure if that was intended as a response to my post, Ian

... perhaps it just happened to immediately follow it

The point is that MZ claims to be standing-up in support of the little guys ... whose attempts to earn a living by collecting personal data instead of charging for their Apps, are portrayed by him as ‘a good thing’

The hypocrisy of that self-serving claim is what upsets me.

I have no desire to use, or be used by, Facebook.

MichaelG.

I've never had an "experience" with Facebook, bad or otherwise. I simply cannot see the purpose of it. Same with all these other "must have" sites.

Like Nigel, my phone is a basic Nokia 2 something or other. It spends 95% of it's life switched off. After all, how did we manage only 30 years ago without being in permanent contact all the time! And certainly I absolutely do not want contacting when I'm out. Indeed, the only reason I take it with me now is in case I have some sort of problem which necessitates calling for help. It also contains numbers of people to contact in case of emergency, but that's about it. This is why now I refuse to give out my mobile number.

The problem with adverts, is that when they are sent electronically, I find them difficult to ignore in that I usually have to do something to get round them, whereas static ads, eg shop windows, hoardings etc, are just part of the passing scenary and thus can easily be ignored. This is why I don't want them shoved at me through the tv or via internet.

As far as tracking is concerned, whether by government, or Google etc, I do have grave concerns. When a country such as Singapore, I think it was, makes it illegal to not download the Covid-19 tracking app, I really do start to get worried. I can see the point of downloading the tracking app, but what about those people who do not have, and have no wish to have, a smart phone? Are we to be required to have one? If so, who will pay for it? And if we do have one, are we then required to have it with us permanently? And to keep it switched on? If so, then we are entering a very dangerous world where people, and not necessarily the law authorities, will be able to determine just what you may be doing at any one time? Expect to see a rise in divorce etc.

I must admit that I don't know what the answer is. In years gone by, ads were generally static and therefore easy to ignore - unless you happened to be in the market for whatever it was. But we managed, and I might suggest that we managed quite well without having them thrust down our ears and into our eyeballs. Just think back to the early days of TV - one channel each of BBC & ITV - and the simplicity of life as it was then when TV ads were a novelty and nobody had internet. And as has been said, newspapers and magazines had ads, but they were easily ignored.

Peter G. Shaw

Thanks for the clarification, Ian

MichaelG.

UPDATE

With some satisfaction ... I read this today: **LINK**

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-ios14-facebook

MichaelG.

No. Without advertising, newspapers and magazines would not exist.

Traditionally 85 per cent of their revenue came from advertising. The cover price makes up the other 15 per cent of revenue, not even enough to pay for the cost of production, printing and distribution. The reason countless thousands of newspapers and magazines have closed down worldwide in the past 10 years has been the relentless migration of advertising out of newspapers and magazines to the internet.

And forums like this would likewise shut down if there were no advertising on them. Ditto YouTube channels being run as a business or as a small earner on the side to fund the poster's workshop habit.

Thank you for that link MichaelG, I share your satisfaction.
In recent developments, living in France I look at the BBC's news offerings (BBC.com/news ) to keep me informed. BBC.com now asks for my permission to share my data with their 'partners' to allow targeted ads. This requires me to scroll down and de-activate seven fields of 'legitimate interest' and unlike more user-friendly sites who ask the same permissions, they do not offer a 'refuse all' button.
A 'nag screen' I believe, hoping that users will 'accept' out of botheration. I will continue to be 'bothered'
DaveD

I wonder how that gets round the BBC's commitment not to advertise - or if this is the organisation having no choice if it wants to run a service on an Internet basically taken over and run by a handful of American corporations.

What is particularly sneaky about most of these filters is that the On/Off virtual switches are so ambiguous, in two ways.

- 1) Does the highlighting mean "ON" or "OFF" ?

- 2) Does "OFF" or "DISABLE" turn off the commercial client's link, or the filter that allegedly bars the link (the opposite effect)?

'

I tried using B&Q's web-site yesterday and today. It has changed since I last used it, and for the worse. It used to be fairly straightforward and convenient, but it is now extraordinarily clumsy and awkward. Worse, its "cookie" filters are basically non-existent and the page refers you to your browser, thereby making switching off the tracking as hard and awkward as possible.

The company is NOT my first choice for tools and materials, but I have my reply ready if in my next visit some Bright Young Thing suggests I use its on-line services:

"You have obviously not tried using it , and anyway, why do you want to put yourself out of work?"

Here’s an interesting item that I had missed: **LINK**

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/20/stop-using-google-chrome-on-apple-iphone-12-pro-max-ipad-and-macbook-pro/

Why You Shouldn’t Use Google Chrome After New Privacy Disclosure

MichaelG.

.

P.S. __ if the very long list of Cookies on Forbes’ page scares you ... scroll down to the bottom, where you will find a comforting ‘Reject All’ button.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 27/05/2021 07:24:45