Vivaldi Co-Founder: Advertisers 'Stole the Internet From Us' (xda-developers.com) 56
Vivaldi is a browser founded by Opera co-founder Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner and launched in 2016 with a heavy focus on privacy and customizations. As someone who has worked on the internet since 1992, Tetzchner has a lot of thoughts on the state of the internet in 2023, especially when it comes to advertising. XDA spoke with Tetzchner at this year's Mobile World Congress, and it's clear to him that advertisers "stole the internet from us." From the report: For the unfamiliar, Android's Privacy Sandbox can track users by creating an offline profile on them and show relevant advertisements based on that. It's a multi-year initiative to introduce more private advertising solutions to end-users and is made possible thanks to the Topics API and FLEDGE. Its goal is to prioritize user privacy by default but still maintain the mobile ecosystem dependent on advertising to support free and ad-supported apps. This is an exclusive-to-Android solution that uses a standalone SDK, separate from the rest of the application code, with the aim of eventually replacing Ad ID. However, Tetzchner doesn't see a difference between standard tracking and companies using the Topics API.
"For us, how you technically do the tracking, you can say it's a little bit better to do it client-side than server-side, but for me, the idea that your browser is building a profile on you... No, no, no, that's wrong. That's just wrong," he tells me. It's not quite where the data goes that seems to bother him the most, but what that data can be used to achieve. He mentions how this data can be used to influence how people vote, a la Cambridge Analytica. Whether that data is on your device or not is irrelevant; political advertisements will still appear regardless. "They stole the internet from us", he says of advertisers. "The internet is supposed to be open and free, and you shouldn't be afraid of being monitored. The idea that you are collecting data to provide ads... I can understand having access to a lot of data to provide a service, but that's not the same as profiling your users."
[...] Tetzchner is deeply disheartened with the state of it. In fact, he believes the current state of advertising is less profitable for sites now than it was before widespread tracking was in place. He mentions "normal ads," which you may see in a magazine or on TV, were the standard for about a decade, even on the internet. "A lot of sites were more profitable, and people were less worried about having to block ads. The ads were normal, it was kind of like what you were seeing if you were going and reading a magazine. There were ads, but they weren't following you." He points out that paywalls have become commonplace across the internet when that wasn't the case 15 years ago. "How is it then that we needed the change that actually created that situation?" he asks. He argues that advertisements are less profitable as a whole thanks to widespread tracking. Advertisers previously paid more because they knew exactly where their advertisements were going. Now with algorithms and Google Ads, not everything is high quality, even if those algorithms try to scan pages for quality content.
"For us, how you technically do the tracking, you can say it's a little bit better to do it client-side than server-side, but for me, the idea that your browser is building a profile on you... No, no, no, that's wrong. That's just wrong," he tells me. It's not quite where the data goes that seems to bother him the most, but what that data can be used to achieve. He mentions how this data can be used to influence how people vote, a la Cambridge Analytica. Whether that data is on your device or not is irrelevant; political advertisements will still appear regardless. "They stole the internet from us", he says of advertisers. "The internet is supposed to be open and free, and you shouldn't be afraid of being monitored. The idea that you are collecting data to provide ads... I can understand having access to a lot of data to provide a service, but that's not the same as profiling your users."
[...] Tetzchner is deeply disheartened with the state of it. In fact, he believes the current state of advertising is less profitable for sites now than it was before widespread tracking was in place. He mentions "normal ads," which you may see in a magazine or on TV, were the standard for about a decade, even on the internet. "A lot of sites were more profitable, and people were less worried about having to block ads. The ads were normal, it was kind of like what you were seeing if you were going and reading a magazine. There were ads, but they weren't following you." He points out that paywalls have become commonplace across the internet when that wasn't the case 15 years ago. "How is it then that we needed the change that actually created that situation?" he asks. He argues that advertisements are less profitable as a whole thanks to widespread tracking. Advertisers previously paid more because they knew exactly where their advertisements were going. Now with algorithms and Google Ads, not everything is high quality, even if those algorithms try to scan pages for quality content.
"Advertisers 'Stole the Internet from Us'" (Score:2)
No notes.
It wasn't stolen, it was sold for money. (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't stolen from you, it was sold for money. Just like the USA was some decades ago.
I wish the techbros would stop moaning about how impure it has become. You all allowed this to happen when you gladly took THE MONEY for the ads.
Most egregious are the instigators, and Google's at the top of that heap.
It's more than the internet that was stolen from all of us, it was our sense of collective free will. I say this, because never before has it been so easy for a precious few to manipulate so many millions.
Re: (Score:2)
What is ironic is that for a period in its history, Opera was ad-supported (200-2005 ads were shown in the browser UI, not just in website content), until Opera sold its soul to Google...
Re: (Score:2)
von Tetzchner isn't against ads, he is against tracking, according to the article. There is a fine difference between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it was our sense of collective free will
I still have my free will. I don't know what a "collective free will" is. But it doesn't sound free if it's part of some sort of group think.
so easy for a precious few to manipulate so many millions
Say the ones who are butt-hurt about their social media personas not getting a sufficient following to achieve "influencer" status.
CDA Section 230 is a good part of what stole the Internet. It made the collection, curation and monetization of content risk free. So it could be re-sold to Madison Avenue. Want to clean up the advertising mess? Make it so that product se
Re:It wasn't stolen, it was sold for money. (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't stolen from you, it was sold for money.
It wasn't just sold for money, it was traded at bargain prices, a product no one wanted. Legitimately advertising is one of the few revenue forms available for internet content and it is overwhelmingly clear that content platforms which taken on the costs of delivery (be that smaller costs such as hosting websites, or larger costs such as streaming video) are popular predominantly in situations where users are asked to part with data instead of money.
People lament the loss of the internet of the 90s. I don't. Compared to the content available today it was an absolute desert, void of anything significant beyond the passion projects of the few nerds. The reality is nearly everyone (the word "most" doesn't have enough weight) wouldn't pay for the content they right now consume for "free".
I do miss functional search engines, but I don't miss the fact that there was little content to find - and before you say "but I always found X when I looked" consider the fact that you are on Slashdot, a nerd, someone who was far more attracted to the internet and to likeminded nerds who were interested in sharing their passion projects.
Re: (Score:3)
Content and availability now is better than the 90s. I was on the Internet in the 90s. Other than a few places, a lot of itwas still a mix of old business with new models.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey I'd be willing to pay cash for my internet content. I believe the market rate is something like 10 cents per thousand ads? As most websites have less than 100 ads that means less than 1 cent per page. At those rates making a payment would be more trouble than the payment amount, that could be solved with some sort of micropayment browser addon.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey I'd be willing to pay cash for my internet content.
You'd almost certainly change your habits when you pay for each individual piece you consume.
I believe the market rate is something like 10 cents per thousand ads? As most websites have less than 100 ads that means less than 1 cent per page.
Except the problem is it doesn't work like that for two reasons, both related to economies of scale in different ways.
1. Economies of scale decimates transaction costs. You may only be contributing 1c to Slashdot's coffers, and maybe 60c a month or so, but if you actually had to pay Slashdot for that privilege it would be far more expensive as a transaction worth 60c is not a transaction worth doing. Or you need to
Re:It wasn't stolen, it was sold for money. (Score:4)
Who is "us" in this argument? Seems like it was the nerds, the ones with the knowledge and the will to build websites, and host them at home or pay for web space. The "good old days" of the net were back when nothing was free - you always paid for it somehow, through your ISP, through your academic fees, through your taxes.
Arguably things are better now. There are many free, easy to use websites and apps that let people use the internet. They are only free because of advertising.
I hate ads as much as anyone, and I use multiple forms of ad-blocking daily. I'm privileged though, I have the knowledge to set ad blocking up, and I can afford to avoid certain free services and pay instead.
I'd rather see advertising controlled and regulated so that as many people as possible can participate in the internet, than to go back to a world where access is limited to just people like me.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish the techbros would stop moaning about how impure it has become. You all allowed this to happen when you gladly took THE MONEY for the ads.
Except that the people who took the money were not the techies who designed, created and supported the Internet and the Web.
There is so much to learn and know that even the cleverest and best-informed people are often lamentably unaware of matters that are most important for them. Thus, techies may not understand how the human species has expanded to such vast numbers that cheats, liars and fraudsters now profit magnificently.
In a hunter-gatherer band, such people stand out like sore thumbs. They immediatel
Re: (Score:2)
That's the angle I was looking for. Should have been FP. (Actual FP is unusually vacuous, even for today's Slashdot.)
If the government had any idea... (Score:2)
What the Internet would become, I'm fairly certain they would of never let us online in the first place. Sadly, the future Internet will probably be only big companies allowed to run websites for commercial purposes and there will be no user-content. Basically like cable TV.
Re: (Score:2)
If the [US] government hadn't "let" us online, some other government would have, or some other startup, somewhere. Though our current internet has its roots in government-funded projects, it could never have remained contained. Over time, those who did have access would have eventually gotten ideas about how to spread the technology more widely. Some of those people would have had commercial interests at heart.
Re: (Score:2)
Well before the government 'let' people on the internet, there were multiple networks of BBSs with international reach. NNTP was actually an evolution of Fidonet moved to the Internet.
In turn, Fidonet and others were all based on modems which were devised as an end-run around a distinctly unfriendly phone company that wanted to charge outrageous prices for digital communication. At first, Ma Bell forbid connecting anything to their phone lines based on thin excuses so modems were acoustic devices that 'spo
Re: (Score:2)
I remember those days well. Government or not, people would have found ways to make the internet happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I do live in a country where we regularly destroy political parties that piss us off. It keeps them on their toes.
Re: (Score:2)
My country only just noticed that the Internet has replaced news and TV. So now they want to regulate and tax it as though it's 1960 broadcast TV.
Re: (Score:3)
Advertisers bought it from us (Score:5, Insightful)
They exchanged their money, for free stuff for us. You and I get to use Google and news sites and slashdot and all kinds of other sites for free, because advertisers pay for these services.
There are three main ways to fund things:
- Pay to use
- Donations
- Advertising
- Government funding
The internet has some of each. Pick your poison.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I know, that's four things.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought this was going to be the lead-in to the Spanish Inquisition sketch.
Re: (Score:2)
They exchanged their money, for free stuff for us. You and I get to use Google and news sites and slashdot and all kinds of other sites for free, because advertisers pay for these services.
And the joke's on them. I use very aggressive adblocking everywhere I go. I rarely see any ads anywhere, although in all fairness I tend to avoid a lot of the places that are heavily infested with ads.
Re: (Score:3)
And the joke's on them. I use very aggressive adblocking everywhere I go. I rarely see any ads anywhere, although in all fairness I tend to avoid a lot of the places that are heavily infested with ads.
If only we could do it in real life. I also surf fairly well ad-and-tracker blocked. But last time I walked London (1991) I wanted to gouge my eyes out, frankly.. especially that one TDK neon in Picadilly. That whole corner is just ghastly. It's not supposed to be, but the ads make it so.
A low-key city absolutely plastered in high-key very bRIgHt neon. And that was then. I shudder to think what it must look like now, plastered in hyper-bright LED giant screens.
Re: (Score:3)
I do the same, but you and I have only won a battle, not the war. More and more sites are implementing stricter ad-blocker-blockers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Since the government bails out the internet companies periodically, why not cut the crap and pay them not to rely on ads?
Re: (Score:2)
What motivation does the government have to do that for us? They get lots of taxes from all that ad money, and from all the income taxes of the people whose jobs depend on all that ad money.
And by the way, the government has made a net profit bailing out companies in crisis, such as the subprime lender bailouts in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: Advertisers bought it from us (Score:2)
The options are all pretty bad. Sometimes I daydream about time traveling back to the 90s, and implementing some digital petty cash thing: buyer-anonymous-to-seller 1 click non refundable payments of small amounts, $15 or less. You want the full article, you just pay the 20 cents, same for the smut gallery, the mp3, etc. The whole ad tracking monster could have been nipped.
Re: (Score:2)
3 things with a list of 4?
Must be an example of the NEW new math now being taught in some schools.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you missed my reply to my post noting the discrepancy.
Re: (Score:2)
+100. Thank you.
I'm frequently astonished by the number of people today who seem flabbergasted when one points out "you know that free thing you are using costs someone money, somewhere, right?"
Chrom* (Score:2, Informative)
>"Vivaldi is a browser [...] 'The internet is supposed to be open and free, and you shouldn't be afraid[...]'"
Says the browser company that switched its browser to be based on Google Chromium. Code completely controlled by Google, with no needs to adhere to open standards, and threatens to create an insecure, dangerous, privacy-abusing browser monoculture. Just like all the other multi-platform browser companies have or are doing... except Mozilla/Firefox.
>"Advertisers previously paid more because
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue with the Privacy Sandbox is a lack of vision. Google is still trying to make tracking a thing, just in a way that preserves a little more privacy than before.
The real solution is to find a way to make ads pay without tracking. Reduce costs or improve returns.
Re: (Score:2)
... except Mozilla/Firefox.
Imagine thinking Firefox is in anyway independent of Google when Mozilla almost entirely depends [calpaterson.com] on Google search engine revenue for its finances and Firefox has been slavishly aping Chrome since version 4 in 2011, stripping out all the useful features that set it apart. Mozilla is Google's B team at this point, and Firefox is controlled opposition kept around to deflect anti-trust lawsuits, given Google has the sort of browser and rendering engine monopoly that Microsoft couldn't have dreamed of back in t
Us? (Score:3)
People want something for nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
People didn't want to pay for a bunch of websites, but stuff costs money. Advertising was an obvious way to pay the bills. It's similar to the average non-technical person not being able to run a server and not wanting to hunt down their friends on a bunch of different sites, so we got a few massive social-media sites.
Now, do advertisers and social-media sites fight (often dirty) anything that could reduce their stranglehold in things? Yep. Does anybody have a legit, scalable, accessible alternative? I haven't really seen anything.
HTTP, HTML, RSS, AP, mf2, Webmention (Score:3)
The old internet wasn't built around a few monolithic sites, but around open protocols that people could join in. E.g. IRC.
The current Internet is likewise based around protocols, such as HTTP, HTML, RSS, ActivityPub, microformats2, and Webmention.
I'm interested in reading technical solutions to making advertising impossible, even ads as unobtrusive as those on Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net].
Re: (Score:1)
"stuff costs money"
How much of the price we pay is markup? 99%?
Re: (Score:2)
The answer (Score:2)
What created the situation was phone-owners refusing to pay $3/year for an applet. Now, they hand-over their location, spending habits, reading habits, browsing habits.
Re: (Score:3)
phone-owners refusing to pay $3/year for an applet
What makes you think that the $3 applet isn't selling your info as well?
Countries with Android before Wallet (Score:2)
What created the situation was phone-owners refusing to pay $3/year for an applet.
One major source of unwillingness to pay at the time was phone makers launching Android phones in countries that didn't yet have Google Checkout (now called Google Wallet). It used to be the case that if you wanted to make an app visible on Android Market (now called Google Play Store) outside USA or a handful of other countries, you needed to price it at zero and make up the difference with advertising.
The Amazon Affiliate Link is the Devils' Spawn (Score:2)
Re: The Amazon Affiliate Link is the Devils' Spawn (Score:2)
Search engines need an option to exclude pages containing Amazon affiliate links.
Opera was add-supported (Score:2)
I distinctly remember using a historic version of Opera that had adds in the corner, which was actually intrusive. I then switched to a paid version which was without adds.
Re: (Score:2)
Free Opera had an ad in the upper right side of the browser. If you paid them, they would take it away. I do not remember the price but I do remember paying it because it was inexpensive and supported a browser I really liked. As noted numerous times on ./, the ad in the browser didn't take up any extra space. Once you were using the pai
So feed it noise (Score:2)
I don't understand why a browser-maker, of all people, would be bitching about this. Isn't all the power in your hands?