How To Get Free Backlinks
How To Get Free Backlinks using Free Traffic System
They Attract Users And, More Importantly, Their Private Data, Which Permits Corporations Like Google And Facebook To Sell Advertising.
Free services are a kind of honey pot for net services. They attract users and, just as importantly, their private data, which in turn allows companies like Google and Facebook to sell advertising.
A lot of users, when they even consider the exchange, treat the advertising as a minor nuisance. They may point to TV and note that our TV broadcasting system was built on advertising, so why don’t you use advertising to back cloud-based information services?
The difficulty is that data is not TV. Television was significant but advertisers had small effect on anything other than likely dumbing down the content of the shows themselves. However , the integrity of private and commercial data is crucial to the working of the modern economy and the need for advertising has a variety of toxic effects on the information services provided to customers.
In my Value of Lost Privacy series, I highlighted the indirect effect of firms like Google using that private data and behavioral selling to allow advertisers like subprime lenders to prey upon vulnerable populations and increase commercial inequality. But advertising has a less complicated effect that makes most online information services less functional for all users and probably poisonous in their wider effects on data protection and the infrastructure of the web itself.
Deliberate Absence of Security in Data Services : The necessity to collect user info to share it with advertisers implies online companies deliberately avoid encryption and other measures that would better protect user data. After technology researcher Chris Soghoian broadcast a New York Times op-ed noting that most journalists did not recognize the lack of security in online services, Google’s top D.C. Privacy lobbyist, William DeVries, wrote on his very own Google+ page that Chris was “dead right. Reporters (and blog authors, and small businesses) need to take one or two hours and learn how to use free, generally available safety features to store information and communicate.”
The question , as Soghoian indicated on his very own site in a follow-up post, is that Google products are not secure out of the box deliberately “because the firm’s business design depends upon the monetization of user data, the company keeps as much data as practical about the affairs of its users. These extensive notes are not just useful to Google’s engineers and advertising groups, but are also a mouth-watering target for law enforcement agencies.” Vint Cerf, Google’s “Chief Web Evangelist” admitted lately on a panel that “we could not run our system if everything in it were encrypted because then we would not know which ads to show you. So this is a system that was designed around a particular business model.”
This means not only repressive regimes can more easily obtain access to your data but identity thieves and other black hat hackers can also. Site after site asks for user names and passwords, many users repeating the same password, so that hacking one unsecure site all of a sudden opens each online account to theft and vandalism.
Absence of Online Anonymity : Tied into the demand to sell to advertisers is the rocketing refusal of web services to allow anonymous users. “On the Internet, No One Knows You’re a Dog” — once the standard joke about anonymity online — has give way to a Big Brother-ish requirement for unremitting identity checks by web sites.
Google’s need that only “real names” be employed in online Google+ accounts is the latest example of this, with MANAGING DIRECTOR Eric Schmidt admitting latterly in an interview the reason is to make it an “identity service” to sell people things:. As Schmidt explained :
“if we knew that it was a genuine person, then we could sort of hold them responsible, we could check them, we could give them things, we could you know bill them, you know we may have credit cards and so forth.”
“Apple and Google both appear enthusiastic about NFC technology (near-field communication),” writes, Mathew Ingram at the site Gigomon, “which turns portable gizmos into electronic wallets, and having a social network tied to an individual user’s identity would come in handy.”
This hard-line against anonymity implies the viewpoints of political dissidents or worker whistleblowers who don’t want their names revealed are effectively silenced in such environments, all for the sake of making advertisers contented and facilitating e-business by online firms.
Bad Site Design : It isn’t as life threatening a problem, but advertising drives web design (in Croatian translate web dizajn) that is revolting, confusing and time-intensive for users. In order to maximize “page views” that will each hold advertising and generate advertising money, articles are parsed into multiple pages. The Columbia Journalism Review describes a similar “Faustian bargain” of the expansion of multiple-page “slide shows” to in a similar fashion generate multiple page impressions to generate ad bucks.
This is mixed with pages where adverts rule more display space, where as the Knight Digitized Media Center explains, “”As news distributors scramble for revenue, advertisers have gained leverage to demand more–and more prominent–digital space. The ensuing ad-heavy homepages make business sense–but the result’s visually ‘appalling.’”
Bolstering the “Tawdry” Side of Capitalism : Internet idealist Jaron Lanier, who has been writing about the Internet since before the majority ever heard about its existence, argues that such identity-based appeals by companies gives advertising a terrible name. He argued in an interview a couple of months back :
Google’s thing is not advertising because it is not a romanticizing operation. It does not involve expression… It’s a little tiny minimalist link, and fundamentally what they are selling is not advertising, they are not selling romance, they are not selling communication, what they are doing is selling access…”You give us cash, we give you access to these people, and then what you do with them is up to you.”
Lanier observes that companies exploiting such identity-based access are not usually from the “dignified side of capitalism” but instead “tend to be lots of ambulance chasers and snake oil salesmen.”
So chasing those low-road advertisers, we see many online data services building internet sites that are less secure, less functional, uglier and weaken political freedom in the service of the needs of those advertisers.
A Substitute for Advertising : The upward thrust of paid apps has shown one possibility road where little payments by users inspire firms to design services only in the interests of users rather than third party advertisers. Even services without delay online often employ a “freemium” model that eschews advertising in favor of providing basic free services to any user, while gaining money from a smaller subset of users who like the service enough to pay a subscription to unlock more advanced features.
To help that alternative of Internet design only In the interests of users, we need policy to better preserve user privacy so that no company can track or share user data without that user’s direct opt-in to every use of their data. More transparent transactions around loss of user information to advertisers (and probably to hackers and identity thieves because of lack of security) will inspire more of those users to choose better-designed and safer paid alternatives as reported tagza.com.