Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet

Behavioral Search & Advertising On Its Way? 186

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the its-not-hear-already? dept.
cyberianpan writes "Imagine a world where advertisers would be able to predict your detailed behavior online. They would know when you are about to buy a song, a car, a present for your spouse — they would know virtually everything you are thinking. With the acquisition of DoubleClick, Google now has access to the cookies and subsequently browsing history of vast numbers of web users. It would be fair to say that greater than 85% of Internet users frequently come into contact with ads served by DoubleClick. Google could potentially have access to not only the majority of the world's search history but its browsing and e-commerce history as well. The company could know more about web surfers than they know about themselves."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Behavioral Search & Advertising On Its Way?

Comments Filter:
  • by Silverlancer (786390) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:14AM (#18750757)
    I have a bunch of extensions (Adblock Plus, CustomizeGoogle, Greasemonkey with Disable Text Ads, etc) and I don't think I've seen an ad, text or image, in weeks. What are these ads people speak of? ;)
    • by cuantar (897695) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:17AM (#18750807) Homepage
      I'll add some links! Get Adblock Plus here: http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] Get Filterset.G Updater here: http://www.pierceive.com/ [pierceive.com] With this pair of extensions, you won't ever see ads again, and the blacklist will update itself automagically.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by beckerist (985855)
        The Filterset.G updater, while nice (and updated!), I've found to be much slower than the Adblock Plus filtersets you can install straight from the plugin. Since Adblock had no such updater, it was a very nice additional feature, but it's memory footprint isn't worth the extra ~5 filters a month (IMO) for AB+.
        • Agreed, I uninstalled it and noticed no real difference in terms of ads but it sped up Firefox quite a bit.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by user24 (854467)
        funny, I block everything apart from google ads. not only do they *shock* sometimes look interesting, but it's also a nice way to thank the webmaster.
        • Google has no way of knowing whether you blocked their ads or not, as the code is removed client-side.
          • by user24 (854467)
            yes, obviously. But why are you telling me this? I sometimes click google ads, either out of genuine interest or as a way of thanking the webmaster of the site running the ads for a good webpage. I don't see how your response was relvant?
          • by xappax (876447)
            Yes, but many ads pay only when they're clicked, and it's difficult to thank a webmaster by clicking an ad that your browser has scrubbed.

            That said, webmasters who want a "tip" would, in my opinion, be much better to put a little paypal donation cup than a bunch of ads. Using advertisments to make money introduces conflicts of interest that can threaten the quality and integrity of the site.

            Advertisments generate money based on the volume of visitors to the page, not their enjoyment or interest in the
            • by user24 (854467)
              lol, making money isn't my primary interest, but the hosting isn't free and it is nice to get some money for the site. nor is it fair to imply that I can *either* create good content *or* run ads. I think (hope) that I manage to do both on my site. In fact, with contextual ads it makes much more sense to create good content than not to. You might even find that running ads makes people create better quality pages (though I wouldn't bet on that).

              I'd sure rather look at ads than have to pay for content.

              Having
              • by xappax (876447)
                nor is it fair to imply that I can *either* create good content *or* run ads.

                Sure, plenty of people make good content and make money off ads - otherwise the internet would be nothing but a cesspool of spam and obtrusive advertisement. But I think the claim that it's a conflict of interest is pretty inarguable. Presumably, your motivation for creating and maintaining your site (which is neat btw) is to share coding information that you think is useful and interesting with like-minded individuals. This
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Beetle B. (516615)
        You guys are missing the point.

        AdBlock blocks ads. It does not block cookies. Doubleclick is still tracking you unless you refuse to allow their cookies. To handle that aspect, use CookieSafe. NoScript would perhaps also increase privacy (I've seen doubleclick scripts on sites).
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Abcd1234 (188840)
          Meh, just have your browser ask about all cookies. Is it annoying at first? Sure. But a) once you've confirmed/denied the cookies for your common sites, you don't have to worry about them again, and b) it gives you some insight into how many frickin' cookies websites try to plant in your browser.
    • by JordanL (886154)
      I find it highly amusing that something so speculative got on /.

      Does the article use any substantiation beyond Google buying DoubleClick, which they arguably would have done for the sole purpose of keeping the company out of Microsoft's hands?

      Honestly, people are giving Google a hard time on this one. I will too, if they screw it up. But at this point, all I see is a defensive acquisition against a company that has stated the intent of putting them under when they only have ONE revenue stream.
    • You can also limit the lifetime of your cookies to end-of-session. Since Firefox can remember all of your login info and such, it's really not much of an inconvenience.
      • by i.r.id10t (595143)
        rm ~/.mozilla/default/gzypa63s.slt/cookies.txt &&
        touch ~/.mozilla/default/gzypa63s.slt/cookies.txt &&
        chmod a-w ~/.mozilla/default/gzypa63s.slt/cookies.txt

        No more cookies!

        Alternatively, between the rm and chmod visit those things you want cookies for, then make your cookies.txt read only.
        • by shadowmas (697397)
          no need to go that far. In the privacy settings of firefox change the "Keep Until" option for cookies to "Until i close firefox" and all the cookies will be cleared as soon as you close the browser.

          the nice thing about it is you can override it for specific sites through the exceptions button and allow selected sites to keep the cookie permanantly. i do this for slashdot and a few selected sites where i need to preserve my login.

          Since the cookies.txt now only contain cookies of important sites i'm thinking
    • by Hatta (162192)
      Setting up adblock etc on every computer on my network can be a bit of a pain. I don't suppose there's anything I can put on my router that will strip out ads on the fly?
      • by LilGuy (150110)
        Create a dns server and download some pre-made host files easily googled. :) The only problem with that approach is that it may delay pages opening while the dns server hammers itself looking for adblock.com...
      • by jZnat (793348) *
        Privoxy [privoxy.org] works well, although you should know that you have to point your web browser to it via proxy settings. I believe it comes with a large list of predefined filters that help clean up the web whilst using it.
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)
      Apparently there are people who still haven't blocked content from DoubleClick. Oh the humanity!

      My first reaction when I heard DoubleClick was worth over 3 billion was to get this sick feeling in my stomach. I just got back from two weeks in Spain, where the old cities are virtually ad free. It was nice, but I didn't really realize it until I hit Frankfurt airport on the way home....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:16AM (#18750785)
    The company could know more about web surfers than they know about themselves

    Could it tell me where I left my keys?
  • Except (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Gr8Apes (679165) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:16AM (#18750793)
    What about people that do searches for their relatives? Or their pets? My dog has glaucoma. I'd be troubled greatly if my researching glaucoma medicines (dogs use the same medicine as people for this disease) caused any sort of reaction from anyone other than a pharmacy to offer me lower priced drops/pills. (Hey, check this guy out - he's researching glaucoma medicine and new cars - no cheap loans for him or insurance!!!!)

    I'm doubly glad for adblock and *doubleclick* :)
    • by beckerist (985855)
      "glaucoma medicine"

      Is it, perchance, that people and animals use the same...herbal remedy?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Grashnak (1003791)

      What about people that do searches for their relatives? Or their pets? My dog has glaucoma. I'd be troubled greatly if my researching glaucoma medicines (dogs use the same medicine as people for this disease) caused any sort of reaction from anyone other than a pharmacy to offer me lower priced drops/pills.
      Just be glad you weren't searching for "incontinency" and "huge tits".
    • by hackstraw (262471)
      What about people that do searches for their relatives? Or their pets? My dog has glaucoma. I'd be troubled greatly if my researching glaucoma medicines (dogs use the same medicine as people for this disease) caused any sort of reaction from anyone other than a pharmacy to offer me lower priced drops/pills. (Hey, check this guy out - he's researching glaucoma medicine and new cars - no cheap loans for him or insurance!!!!)

      Kinda reminds me of Altavista or some other older search engine (or eBay today) where
      • by AndersOSU (873247)
        I don't think they'd do it if it wasn't at least partially successful. An example: Drive debuted last night. When I first saw a commercial I said, "Wow that looks stupid, I don't ever want to watch that show." But it has been advertised soo much that I almost fooled myself into thinking I wanted to see it. I had to actively remind myself what I thought the first time I heard about it.

        Politicians play this game better than possibly anyone.
    • by nbritton (823086)

      Hey, check this guy out - he's researching glaucoma medicine and new cars - no cheap loans for him or insurance!!!!)
      Or you could be a doctor.

      --
      Does Google think your a gynecologist?
  • Adblock? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:17AM (#18750799)
    So if I use adblock [mozdev.org] to block say *.doubleclick.net/* , does that mean that I'm safe from the thought-thieves?
    • by gsslay (807818)
      *.doubleclick.net/*

      The very first filter line of adblock on my computer. I wouldn't have a web-browser without it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Beetle B. (516615)
      I appreciate that these posts are tagged as humorous, but it is a serious trap that I've found many people falling into. AdBlock does not protect your privacy (as far as I can tell). The cookies are still there. Use Cookie Safe.
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:17AM (#18750811)
    So instead of taking a year trekking round the world to "find themselves", people could just ask Google.

     
  • Whew!!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by poadshaw (1056186)
    Good thing I use http://www.msn.com/ [msn.com]

    *puke*
  • by Turbowaffle (1079577) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:26AM (#18750955)
    Maybe soon Google checkout will know when it's my wife's birthday, and tell me "No no, don't get her that, get her this instead" when I add something to the cart.
    • Maybe soon Google checkout will know when it's my wife's birthday, and tell me "No no, don't get her that, get her this instead" when I add something to the cart.

      This is marked as "funny" but realistically this is one of the biggest benefits of such a system. Right now people have Amazon wishlists and wedding registries, but it is one short step from that to an integrated system where items you look at and buy online are combined with user reviews to make it easy for others to pick gifts you probably will like. Now here are some big privacy issues here. If your grandmother goes to buy you a birthday gift and Google recommends "baking erotic cakes for dummies" beca

  • who the fark lets those things stick around long enough to have useful data? Isn't just accepted practice to do cookie maintenance every few weeks?

    Except of course, now google can pair up my google ID with those doubleclick cookies I keep deleting...
    • Isn't just accepted practice to do cookie maintenance every few weeks?

      Weeks? How about every day? Close Firefox, BAM!, all data gone.

      That said, my position allows me to see the files and such on peoples machines (remotely) and let me tell you, I've seen cookies on machines that are years old. Up to three years in some cases.

      Then again, companies are going apeshit over people deleting cookies [nytimes.com] because they can't accurately track you and are making a concerted effort to convince people to not d

      • I've seen cookies on machines that are years old. Up to three years in some cases.

        Yeah, our "corporate policy" where I work is to set cookie expiry to (time_t)-1. Even if there's no data in the cookie, it'll never die. On the sites I work on, I always just use session cookies (sorry, Corporate, must have forgotten to set that field... :P), because that's all I need.

        I wonder if it'd be worthwhile to have your browser set a default maximum expiration date? Any cookie set would have its expiration date set to MIN(requested-date,browser-max-exp-date). Set it for a day, a week, maybe hav

  • Hmm..... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mockylock (1087585) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:30AM (#18751021) Homepage
    So they know about the endless hours of porn I watch? Hopefully not the midget porn though, right? I mean.. I was discreet about that. There weren't any ads I clicked on or anything.

    Well, now I know my secret is safe.

    Oh wait.
  • by sean.peters (568334) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:31AM (#18751023) Homepage

    If you believe this is impossible then you would be wrong as there are a few companies who have access to enough Internet data to make this privacy lover's nightmare a reality and believe it or not a relatively new science called behavioral targeting is taking the online advertising world by storm.

    Holy crap, I think we need to undertake an emergency mission to airdrop some punctuation into this guy's office. That sentence was just about incomprehensible.

  • TrackMeNot (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:31AM (#18751025)

    TrackMeNot [mozilla.org] is a Firefox extension that protects against search data profiling by issuing randomized queries to popular search-engines with fake data.

    If you want to read my mind by analyzing my search queries, I hope you're prepared to sift through a mountain of noise.

    • by zappepcs (820751)
      I don't know why exactly, but I think that is funny as hell. If only enough people use it, this new technology might one day decide that most Intarweb users are latent school teachers and like pink ponies and colorfully planted flowerbeds when they are not trying to raise money to supply more bricks for the addition to their local church.
    • Security through obscurity through wasted bandwidth, I say.

      Since they claim to only analyze data in the aggregate, I doubt your "mountain of noise" makes much of a difference anyway.
  • by CelticWhisper (601755) <celticwhisper.gmail@com> on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:32AM (#18751037)
    Long-time Firefox/Adblock user here with something of an itchy trigger finger where Adblock is concerned. I've gone as far as completely gutting graphic-intensive web layouts via Adblock just to get pages to load quicker (Gradients on Slashdot? I see no gradients...) and every graphical ad, sponsor/partner link, or anything else commercial-looking I see usually gets the Adblock Special.

    Well, for a long time I was willing to leave Google's text ads alone on the grounds of them being unobtrusive and generally not degrading my browsing experience. They stayed well enough out of the way that it wasn't worth it to me to block them for the minimal improvement I'd see in my load times and the minimal reduction I'd see in corporate crap sullying the pages I'm trying to read. Add to that the fact that the Google text ads were easily enough identified at a glance that they were always instantly recognizable and avoidable and there was never any compelling reason for me to risk harming a few non-profit websites I enjoy by screwing them out of ad revenue.

    No more. Visual presence isn't the only factor to consider when determining which ads get the death sentence, though it has long (and for many, I suspect) been the most significant. Google's ads may not be visually offensive, but if they start down the road of Big Brothering me, no PC I touch will ever display a Google ad again. I know Google is a favorite of geeks everywhere, and those who know me know I'm a big fan of a lot of their products, but this rampant near-delirious compulsion to track everyone everywhere for the purpose of shoving marketing in their faces has got to stop. If I want to buy something online, I will seek it out myself, god dammit. This "the ads are relevant, you might find something you like" smacks of "it's for your own good" far too much for my liking.

    Developers of technologies like Adblock and BugMeNot are heroes of the common man's internet and should be lauded as such. I think Greasemonkey likely falls in the same category, though I admit to not yet having used it due to a lack of knowledge of Javascript. Any tool to enhance and enforce control over one's own system is unequivocally, incontestably a good thing and I have a feeling we'll need more and more of them to counteract and undermine the efforts of commercial interests who want to sleaze their way to more ad impressions and massively pervasive marketing. Hmm, there's a fun acronym^W canonical abbreviation to accompany MMORPG. MPM. 's got a ring to it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      So, what's the business model for all this great online stuff we like so much, if not ads? Really, for all the people who hate ads so much and feel they are vile, you do realize that it's either pay for content, or view ad-supported content, right?

      Seriously - what's the end game if more and more people start blocking ads?

      I can give you a hint: if the ration of ad blockers starts to rise, publishers will have to get inventive to recoup advertising revenue to support their operations. That means more annoying
      • by xappax (876447)
        So, what's the business model for all this great online stuff we like so much, if not ads?

        Perhaps you've never heard of a gift economy [wikipedia.org], but you've probably been involved in one unknowingly. The internet began as a gift economy, everyone offering and exchanging information voluntarily at their own expense because they wanted to share it. That's what made it great, and that's the way it should stay.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499)
      ...for the purpose of shoving marketing in their faces has got to stop.

      Just out of curiosity, what is it that you think allows sites like Slashdot to even exist? Do you really think that the vast majority of the decent content on the web would be available to (even after you've stripped it down to your liking) if the people that labor to produce what you're looking for had no ability to attract revenue from advertisers? Do you really want to have to subscribe to thousands of web sites? Do you want them t
      • by zobier (585066)

        Just out of curiosity, what is it that you think allows sites like Slashdot to even exist?

        I realise /. get paid to host advertising, however a lot of geeks block that advertising. Also, I only come here to read the comments and interact with the community. The requirement to maintain this sort of site is infrastructure, bandwidth and some development work which obviously has costs associated with it. The thing that ppl come for though is provided by the ppl.

        (User-generated) content is king!

        Not directly to parent: Another thing that has come up a lot in the recent discussions on the topic (of

        • by ScentCone (795499)
          The thing that ppl come for though is provided by the ppl. (User-generated) content is king!

          Content is indeed king, but without the infrastructure (which is hideously expensive, and where a lot of the usual ad revenue ends up going), there would be no vehicle for it. People (even geeks, strangely) seem to gloss over that little bit of the overhead when they're feeling more righteous or possesive/protective/needy about the content in question. No question that slashdotters feel some ownership over what th
    • by Plutonite (999141)
      Please do not overreact. Your points are all valid, but google is NOT big brothering you so far - they're keeping track of you through simple cookies that are stored on your side, not theirs. Clear your cookies, Google has never seen you before.

      If we do begin to find evidence that google is somehow storing things server-side for users who are logged in, then I agree we should start the torches-and-hay-forks thing ASAP.
  • by Darkon (206829) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:33AM (#18751055)
    ...who has never, ever, since they first got online bought a single damn thing via clicking an ad on a web site?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by treeves (963993)
      Of course not, but all it takes is a very small percentage who do (and muck it up for the rest of us) and it pays off. Just like spam.
  • by user24 (854467) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:38AM (#18751115) Homepage
    "Google now has access to the cookies and subsequently browsing history of vast numbers of web users"
    no it doesn't, the cookies reside on MY computer, and I purge my cookies every time I close the browser.

    and what's wrong with cookies? nothing! sure, doubleclick can link the IDs together to form a *partial* internet history, but they can do that with my IP address/userAgent combo. I'm sure my adblocker*/useragent/ip forms a fairly unique signature. What does this give google that they didn't have before? As far as I can see, it just buys them a whopping chunk of target audience, but the data? they could have got that themselves, and cheaper.

    * by which I mean, have the parent page try to load a bunch of commonly-but-not-by-default blocked images/url/paths. If there are 300 people sharing my IP, it's not likely that they all block the same paths nor that they all use the same version of the same browser. Thus we can generate a fairly unique signature for users behind shared IPs, without having to use cookies. I'm sure there's other info like screen resolution/colour depthat could be added to give greater accuracy. anyway, my point is/was that the cookies are basically useless, it's the target market that google wanted.
    • by Sporkinum (655143)
      "Google now has access to the cookies and subsequently browsing history of vast numbers of web users"
      no it doesn't, the cookies reside on MY computer, and I purge my cookies every time I close the browser.


      I think the key phrase there is "history of vast numbers of web users". Most people just don't block anything. Nerds on Slashdot do. We are a statistical blip as far as they are concerned.
  • It's all good (Score:4, Informative)

    by jeevesbond (1066726) on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:38AM (#18751121) Homepage

    All this shouldn't be too difficult to work around. Google watching my every move? Nope: I use Scroogle [scroogle.org]! Then there's Tor [eff.org], it's a bit slow sometimes, but if you don't like it run your own Tor server and help the network speed up. :) There are also all the other ad/cookie blockers mentioned by others here.

    The only possibility worrying me is our government overlords demanding people give up the right to use this software in the name of anti-terrorism/anti-paedophilia. Until that time people have a choice whether they're anonymous online, which is good. The people who don't know how to remain anonymous can either read up or pay one of us IT chaps to tell them.

  • Imagine if a site KNEW that you just LOVED deals, so they'd mark down that 8-bit tie just when you strolled by the site. Or, maybe the site KNOWS that you just pissed off your wife and increases the prices of flowers knowing that you're going to buy anyways.
    • by nuzak (959558)
      Imagine if a site KNEW that you just LOVED deals, so they'd mark down that 8-bit tie just when you strolled by the site.

      Ever heard of a loyalty coupon? Heck, sometimes I even get free junk.

      Or, maybe the site KNOWS that you just pissed off your wife and increases the prices of flowers knowing that you're going to buy anyways.

      The site that marks them down will have an even bigger price difference. It's not like I have to walk any further.

      You're hardly painting a Minority Report future here.
  • "Don't be evil"?
  • by Eil (82413)
    Dear Google,

    Do No Evil. (Please?)

    Signed,
    Every Web User
  • This article seems very speculative, if not pure fantasy. It assumes Google will somehow turn your search history and ad-clicking history into some kind of predictive model of your brain. The author doesn't really seem to understand any of the technology involved, he repeatedly claims that since Google now owns DoubleClick, they have (legal) access to ALL of your cookies and browsing history. Most of the statistics he quotes are totally useless, for example:

    Fayyad (Yahoo R&D VP) proudly says he can predict with 75% certainty which of the 300,000 monthly visitors to Yahoo! Autos will purchase a new car within the next three months.

    In other words, 3 out of 4 times, he can predict which of the people visiting an automobile price/review site will buy a car in the next three months. Considering that most people wouldn't go to Yahoo Autos unless they had some interest in buying a car, it's not really rocket science to track users and decide which are the "serious" ones and which are just window-shopping. The whole article is filled with speculation that once Google has access to similar data, they'll be able to accurately predict everything we do online, but what the author fails to deliver on is how they'll be able to make the jump from predicting click-through rates on ads to full behavioral models everyone who surfs the web.

    Also, the article feels like it's written by a 5th grade English student with a thesaurus. Run-on sentences galore, wild trips of imagination that aren't supported by the article's sources, and a pathetic lack of proper punctuation besides the occasional period. He even uses a smiley face at the end.

  • This gives me an idea. Rather than a traditional ad blocker, someone should create an AdFaker. While you're away from the computer, it will periodically search and surf on various topics to throw GooClick off your track. You could choose from different profiles to convince them you're planning a bank heist, traveling to Madagascar, or whatever you like.

    There wouldn't be much practical benefit, but it would be fun to see what ads you could get to appear!
  • Google is in the business of collecting exceptional amounts of personally identifiable information. You use a gmail account? That tracks email content ads that are served to you. It also allows google to track every search YOU do when you are logged in and using google. Google checkout? Tracks where you purchase stuff. Doubleclick uses cookies on your computer and what for? Frequency capping which makes sure you dont see the same ad 200 times, and creative rotation to allow you to see a series of par
  • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo@NOspAm.world3.net> on Monday April 16, 2007 @11:47AM (#18752089) Homepage
    I whitelist all cookies. Basically, all cookies except those on my list are deleted every time I close my browser. I do this with the aid of the CookieButton Firefox extension.

    This needs to be set as the default behaviour in browsers. Add a button which lets the user decide to keep data from a particular site. Put it over as "let me stay logged in to this site after closing Firefox/IE".

    Of course, they still have my IP address, or would if I didn't block *doubleclick*. However, thanks to mass adoption of NAT an IP address is hardly very useful for identifying a single person, as legal courts are staring to realise.
  • Likely? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bearhouse (1034238)
    Well, the legal team at Microsoft would like you to think so, based on their recent attack on the deal: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-goo gle-antitrust.html?_r=1&oref=slogin [nytimes.com] With apologies for the shitty link format
  • If you signed up for gmail using your cell phone then they already have real-world ID data to associate with your searches.
  • From the its-not-hear-already dept.

    And no, I'm not new here(hear?)...
  • This is just an antecdotal story, but it did give me pause.

    The other night I finally caved in to my girl friend's desires to have a cat. Of course I can't just have any cat so I went on Google to do some research. I decided that I want an American Bobtail (at least until I figured out that the damn things can cost in excess of $2000 but that's another story). Once I decided I wanted a bobtail, I Googled "american bobtail breeders". Of course the context sensative ad came on the right hand side of the pa

  • Google and doublecrook can eat shit and die in the woods.
    I have blocked access to ALL google and doubleclick systems on my lan.
    No machine connected to my lan can access anything related to google or doublecrook.
    I've installed ad blocking software into my firewall (smoothwall) and ads are blocked at the frontdoor.
    I despise ads and cookies deeply and I despise the corporations that show them in my face.
    Now they can shove them up their asses sideways. You want to track my browsing?
    Track me through TOR you f**
  • Just six weeks ago, what I was searching for and purchasing and googling is completely different than what I'm getting today. My needs were satisfied. If they send me ads for similar items, it will just be noise for two or three years.
  • It's just becoming more accurate. I actually find it slightly refreshing, because this type is less insulting. Let's say I wax nostalgic and flip over to Lifetime to see The Amy Fisher Story.(We'll assume I've been drinking.) Just because I'm viewing "television for women" doesn't mean I want to see 3 ads for Lysol Disinfectant Spray and the Gerber Life Grow-Up Plan during each commercial break. I do happen to be a woman, but I'm not a soccer mom, and I feel like I'm being pandered to when they shove that d

A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough For Love"

Working...