| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | The Race for Human Attention
-- By LiranNacker - 04 Nov 2016 | | | Introduction
| |
<
< | People consider online advertisements to be a small price to pay for freely consuming digital content. This understanding is flawed. For years now, online publishers have relied on ads as their main source of revenue. Under this financing model, what appears to users to be “free” access to content in exchange for their decision whether to click an ad or not – is in fact a contractual relationship between the online publisher and the advertiser, in which, in return for sponsorship, the advertiser gains the ability to target the publisher’s users with specialized ads. For this to be effective, users end up paying for “free” content with something far more valuable than money – a form of two-layered currency – their attention and their privacy.
The Bad – Attention
The rapid transition of mainstream media to Internet-based formats has created an environment in which advertisers are constantly vying for human attention online.
I think this reverses any plausible causal construction. Surely the market for attention is the prior condition?
Online publishers have enabled advertisers to intervene in how content is displayed at the user’s end – heavily affecting the user experience; and creating a (far from elegant) mosaic of “rich” ads comprised of animated text, video and sound. Users accessing online newspapers in pursuit of knowledge are bombarded with unavoidable and distracting banners and popups – as part of the advertiser’s attempt to shift the user’s attention away from the original content sought.
The Ugly – Privacy
Induced by this race, new capabilities have been introduced within this field – namely in the form of Targeted and Retargeted advertising – that pinpoint a particular audience with highly personalized ads. This form of “new-age” advertising consists of easy to deploy tracking technologies (namely Cookies) and various analytic tools, aimed at tracking, analyzing and predicting users’ online behavior. In such an environment publishers are incentivized to commercialize their users’ information and knowingly allow for invasive, sometimes malware-vulnerable, software to run at their users’ end.
The finish line of this race for attention is the heavy price payed by users for this “free” digital content – a commercial database containing people’s interests, searches, likes and dislikes; and neither the publisher nor advertiser have any interest in putting this practice to rest. I am not suggesting there is anything inherently wrong with presenting a user with personalized ads, however, it is wrong to “surveil” a user for mere commercial benefit, without the user’s explicit consent; and without giving the user access to the data collected. | >
> | Many have called for greater attention to the power of the Net, as an aggregator of our online behavior. They caution us that we are inviting the gradual forfeiture of our right to privacy by allowing companies to collect, store and analyze our online behavior in exchange for free content. This type of thinking is exemplified in attitudes towards online advertising – nowadays, an inseparable part of the online environment. People consider their exposure to ads to be a small price to pay for freely consuming digital content. However, users end up paying for this “free” content with something far more valuable than money – a form of two-layered currency – their attention and their privacy. | | | | |
<
< | The Good | >
> | The Bad – Lack of Privacy in the Market for Human Attention | | | | |
<
< | Recently, online publishers and advertisers have been forced to reconsider certain aspects of this model. This is perhaps mainly due to the financial damage inflicted upon this industry by its users’ growing use of Ad-Blockers. According to PageFair, in 2015 there were 198 million active Ad-Block users and ad-blocking has been estimated to cost publishers nearly $22 billion that year. This increase in popularity of ad-blocking between 2014-2015, appears to correlate with the growth of Retargeting. | >
> | Online publishers rely on ads as their main source of revenue. Under this financing model, what appears to users to be “free” access to content in exchange for their decision whether to click an ad or not – is in fact a contractual relationship between the online publisher and the advertiser in which, in return for sponsorship, the advertiser gains the ability to target the publisher’s users with specialized ads. For this to gain the upper hand, advertisers must constantly vie for human attention online by intervening in how content is displayed at the user’s end. This form of interference, heavily affects the user experience through the creation of a mosaic of “rich” ads comprised of animated text, video and sound. Users accessing content online are bombarded with distracting banners and popups as part of the advertiser’s attempt to shift the user’s attention to the ad and away from the original content sought. | | | | |
<
< | This technology has enabled users to disrupt this mechanism by gaining back the control over how content is displayed at the user end. Ad-Blockers prevent the first type of payment by users, by preventing ads that do not meet certain criteria or originate from blacklisted domains to run, thereby reinstating attention back to the content and away from the ad. More importantly, Ad-Blockers prevent tracking tools from loading on websites and tracking users’ online activities. | >
> | Induced by this race, new capabilities have been introduced within this field in the form of Targeted and Retargeted advertising that pinpoint a particular audience with highly personalized ads. This form of “new-age” advertising consists of easy to deploy tracking technologies (known as Cookies) and various analytic tools, aimed at tracking, analyzing and predicting users’ online behavior. In such an environment publishers are incentivized to commercialize their users’ information and knowingly allow for invasive, sometimes malware-vulnerable, software to run at their users’ end. Not surprisingly, at the finish line of this race is the heavy price paid by users for this “free” digital content – a commercial database containing people’s interests, searches, likes and dislikes; and neither the publisher nor advertiser have any interest in putting this practice to rest. | | | | |
<
< |
The Future
A. The Publisher | >
> | The Ugly – Lack of Autonomy in the Market for Human Attention | | | | |
<
< | In this unprecedented shift in power, users have clearly signaled to online publishers that they are no longer willing to be commercially surveilled. In “response”, the Newspaper Association of America has recently filed a “Complaint and Request for Investigation” to the FTC, regarding deceptive ad-blocking practices. I believe that online publishers should seize this current “attack” to stay true to their journalistic ethics and disassociate themselves from this problematic relationship with advertisers that potentially affects press freedom. This can be achieved by adapting other financing models which do not rely on ads and do not promote collection of data and analysis of human behavior.
“Paywalls” and other subscription-based models are likely to reduce the audience to only those who can afford to pay for content. Therefore, a more feasible financing model for online publishers would be a model that relies on the audience’s willingness to contribute, if they so choose – for the creation of content that they enjoy and love. Sceptics of this model should consider the funding mechanism used to support Wikimedia Foundation and the success of Wikipedia to provide free, ad-less content; as well as the success of a slightly different model used by National Public Radio, which is rapidly moving away from corporate sponsorship, by relying on contributions from listeners. | >
> | The race for human attention online has also curtailed and imperiled our autonomy. Professor Eben Moglen, in a 2014 article in The Guardian, defines privacy as a combination of three elements – “Secrecy, Anonymity and Autonomy”. Autonomy, he stresses, is “our ability to make our own life decisions free from any force that has violated our secrecy or our anonymity”. Based on this unpacked definition, the market for human attention is clearly detrimental to users’ autonomy. In exchange for “free” content, users have allowed advertisers to track their online behavior and anticipate what it is that they will read, will listen to, will buy and where they will travel. However convenient this state of affairs has made our lives, we must concede that it impairs our ability to be autonomous in how we think and live our lives. This encroachment on users’ autonomy is compounded by the fact that for the most part it occurs without their informed consent. | | | | |
<
< | B. The User and the State | >
> | The Good - Changes in the Market for Human Attention | | | | |
<
< | Users should take responsibility and continue to demand that advertisers allow them to read and browse privately. This does not mean that all corporate sponsorship of online journalism should be banned; however, users must oppose the continued reduction of online privacy, for mere commercial benefit. In parallel, Regulators should intervene in the relationship between online publishers and advertisers and continue to adopt privacy rules to protect online users. | >
> | In a minor shift in power, brought in part by users’ growing use of Ad-Blockers (estimated according to PageFair to cost publishers nearly $22 billion in 2015), some online publishers have adopted new financing models which do not rely entirely on ads. Some have transitioned towards the use of “Paywalls” and other subscription-based models, while others have come to rely on the audience’s willingness to contribute, if they so choose, to support content that they enjoy and love. Sceptics of this model should consider the funding mechanism used to support Wikimedia Foundation and the success of Wikipedia in providing free, ad-less content; as well as the success of a slightly different model used by National Public Radio, which is rapidly moving away from corporate sponsorship, by relying on contributions from listeners. Online publishers are increasingly likely to explore alternative financing models in light of the growing interference by Regulators in the relationship between online publishers and advertisers. | | |
Conclusion
| |
<
< | Privacy is a right, not a bargaining tool. We need to rethink this environment in which personal information is the cost of “free” content – as putting online privacy at risk in order to consume content and receive services online is morally wrong and entirely unnecessary. I believe this change should begin exactly where the problem began – online journalism. Success in shifting human attention back from the ad to the actual news content – will gradually bring back online privacy, and will, I believe, set a precedent for greater abusers of users’ information, to rethink their financing models.
It is up to both online publishers and their users to bring about this change. And it requires their attention now, because the days of advertisers tracking us inside our homes, with banners appearing on kitchen appliances and shower mirrors, suggesting that we are out of milk – are nearing. In fact, they are already here. | >
> | The practice in which personal information is provided in exchange for “free” content, has put online privacy at risk by affecting the right of online users to consume digital content anonymously, and to make autonomous decisions online. In this market for human attention, online advertising has served as a catalyst in this gradual demise of online privacy – enabling the creation of an environment in which users are “surveilled” for commercial benefit. Recently, efforts have been made to rethink the financing models used by online publishers, so as to shift human attention back from the ad to the actual content - thereby attempting to restore online privacy. However, this is clearly just the tip of the iceberg, as the commercialization of privacy online extends well beyond online advertising and the market for human attention in which online advertising flourishes. This practice requires our attention now, because the days of advertisers and other service providers tracking us inside our homes, with banners appearing on kitchen appliances suggesting that we are out of milk, and shower mirrors promoting razor blades – are fast approaching. In fact, they are already here. | | | | |
<
< |
This draft mixes
general descriptive and personal normative propositions too freely.
Where you believe change should begin is not actually relevant. The
most promising direction here for improvement, aside from correction
of inaccuracies, is a tighter focus. Ad-blocking is still a very
small phenomenon in comparison to the volume flow of advertisement
through the Net. Parties who install and use ad-blockers are not
generally considered by advertisers to have much value, even if one
could unblock them. For a "mainstream" media company (whatever
that is), the ongoing irreversible collapse of print advertising is
much more important. What is the real point you are making, given
that the Net has morphed into a behavior collection system that does
not require any particular form of "media content" in order to go on
collecting behavior? The "telecommunications" company has taken its
place as the least-cost collector of behavior, and is now buying
"media content" as an adhesive to be used to stick users to its
network as subscribers to data plans. So, what is the idea
animating this essay? Put it at the front, said succinctly and with
force. Show how the idea develops out of the sources you have been
reading or the ideas of others, and conclude by showing how the
reader could extend your idea further on her own.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|