Dropsafe

by Alec Muffett

Federating the Stupidity of Search

[this posting continues a comment thread from Joe Andrieu’s blog]

Hi Joe,

Well I’ve read your response, chewed over it for the weekend, and it’s pretty clear to me that you’re unlikely to shift your perspective on instilling into web-search technologies some manner of “User-Driven” nature in the way that you understand the term. I believe your understanding is wrong, but we’ve already discussed that.

However, there’s one thing I cannot let drop – that you preach to me the web is bound together by social contracts, specifically under which we (web users) are morally bound to accept advertising. Further, you equate use of tools like AdBlockPlus with “Hacking”, presumably in an attempt to brand it further as “morally wrong”; alas “hacking” is something about which I know a considerable amount, and I will simply assert here that AdBlockPlus is not hacking and you can query that later if you choose.

You state:

AdBlockPlus is a violation of your social contract and terms of service. You may not like that your website of choice has chosen a business model that offends you, but it doesn’t give you the right to access their content without addressing the quid-pro-quo they clearly expect you to participate in. I expect you don’t find that a compelling argument, but that’s ok. Hacking your way around capitalism isn’t innovative, it’s just passe.

This paragraph is wrong in at least four different ways:

Firstly, I don’t have a contract with “The Web” – be it a contract social, moral, legal, pre-nuptial or otherwise. I have a contract with my ISP to deliver me a set amount of bandwidth, and in that there is nothing incumbent to retreive every hyperlink that might be offered to me.

Secondly, since when am I meant to be bound by an advertiser’s expectations? I find it hard to conceive that you read even a significant proportion of the adverts in “free” newspapers that you encounter. I am also pretty sure that anyone enthusiastic enough to buy his sibling a TiVO and laud that in a blog posting is probably fast-forwarding his way through his quota of TV advertising; so why would you deny me the choice to see or not see what I want on my Firefox?

Thirdly, it’s not “hacking”, but I’ve already said that.

Fourthly, by eschewing adverts I am not proposing anything even remotely anti-capitalist. I spent much of the weekend drooling over the goodies on Xtracycle.COM – a company for which I have never seen advertisements other than to encounter recommendations for them on a shitload of blogs. I’ve put myself on one of their product waiting lists. Sales win – YAY! – and without a banner/sidebar advert in sight.

So the thing about advertising is they’re doing it wrong. In a world of communities and search-engines you are better to use some variation of word-of-mouth than stand on a streetcorner and shout at people.

Especially when they can SWITCH YOU OFF.

You continue: (my annotations)

Regardless of your predilection for hacking [SIGH] your way past the TOS [IE: TERMS OF SERVICE OF THE WEB AS A WHOLE, AS DICTATED BY ADVERTISERS], the reason you would want to bundle your [HISTORICAL] search data and send it to a vendor is for better search results. Your [QUESTIONING THE VALUE OF THAT IS] essentially the same as asking why you would want to tell Google what you are looking for online’! My Goodness! Then someone would know what you’re doing!! And the answer is the same: because if you don’t tell someone about your search, nobody can help you find stuff.

…the thing that gets to me is although you’re right to call my search history “invaluable”, the folk to whom you seek to provide that value are “Advertisers”, or more specifically “Advertisers other than the one who runs the search-engine which I am using at that given moment”.

In essence You’re talking about federating peoples’ search-histories and sharing them promiscuously with “access controls” in the expectation that this will bring more diversity and value:

For User-driven Searches, we must move beyond the keywords and limited structured form fields to allow a more complex, more expressive statement of intent. This statement should include the entire range of Search activity for your given Search, including queries, Search Providers, clickthroughs, captures, and annotations. In short, it should bundle up the entire Search and present it to the Search Provider as an explicit statement of intent. This presentation must be independent of any data silo, unlimited by the offerings of any particular vendor. It should be a proactive statement of “Here’s what I’m looking for: here’s what I’ve found so far and where I’ve been. Got anything that might help?”

…whereas I (not believing in strong AI) propose this will lead to the first search engine saying:

“You appear to be looking for Music. We have Opera, and many Britney Spears albums.”

…and because you clicked on that link (“clickthrough”) the next will say:

“You appear to be looking for Britney Spears. We have many Britney Spears posters.”

…and the next will say:

“You appear to be looking for Britney posters. We have much trashy porn. Press the fart button.”

…and because Joe has federated the stupidity of search engines, there shall be no respite from accidental tainting of your search history.

Yes there is room to improve search, and I suggest that “putting users in charge of search”, literally applied, would mean seeking the opinion of the communities in which you participate. This is how we already do it, with “personal recommendation” technology.

However: to share my entire Google clickstream with Amazon that the latter may recommend stuff better to me? That would be a debacle to make Facebook Beacon look trivial…

⊞

Comments

8 responses to “Federating the Stupidity of Search”

  1. Joe Andrieu

    Well, you’re right that you won’t change my mind about the value of putting people in control of their search. Whether I’m wrong or you just don’t understand what I’m trying to do is doubtless a futile debate. So, on that, I’m sure we can agree to disagree.

    As for hacking around the social contract, that I’m happy to debate.

    First, I didn’t imply that hacking was morally wrong, that was your own interpretation. I used hacking in the sense of applying an innovative solution to get what you want contrary to the boundaries envisioned by the system creators or implementers. I assure you the guys making money of those ads to finance their content didn’t intend for you to block them. And note, it isn’t the advertisers who are getting ripped off, it is the content provider.

    Second, nobody signs a literal social contract. The term is used in my post–and I would say generally–to refer to implied contracts that hold the fabric of our society together.

    More relevant, you have in fact entered into a number of TOS contracts as you have surfed the web. I know you have used Google and that alone binds you to their TOS. You might be surprised by the Terms of Service contracts that companies would currently hold you to right now. Whether or not they can in court is a legal question, which I’ll avoid at the moment.

    There are both socially implied contracts with your use of online services and stated Terms of Service contracts which you should consider a part of the ecosystem that enables the world wide web to function.

    When you chose to alter the predominant paradigm so you can sidestep the mechanism that finances the content you are viewing, you are innovating around the system in ways unanticipated by the system designer and in a way that violates the quid-pro-quo trade that makes the content sustainably available. That, sir, is hacking around Capitalism.

    If everyone used adblocker (and it was perfectly effective), it would put many content companies out of business, content that you and I currently consume. In fact, if you didn’t consume it, you wouldn’t need the blocker, so I know you do consume it. What you are is called a “FreeRider” in economic terms. You want the content that’s out there, but you don’t want to have to pay the price in watching advertising. A classic tragedy of the commons, that’s you!

    You may disagree with the choice of terms “hacking” and “social contract”, but it is clear that adblocking behavior is nothing other than digital parasitism on a content economy that could not possibly survive if people like you vastly outnumbered those who actually support the system as expected.

    As for search, I think we agree that the scenarios you outline are perfectly useless. Of course, ascribing them blindly to the proposed results of User-driven Search is premature to say the least.

    Just because you can’t imagine a way to use this information to provide better Search results doesn’t mean other’s can’t. Innovation requires overcoming naysayers like you, so I’m ok with that.

    The Beacon debacle was all about user privacy and permissions. It was about federating data without rights management or user control. You dismiss proper rights management and controls as a possibility, but I’ll stand by the fact that it can be done. Given an enforceable agreement with Amazon to respect the data rights policy attached to your search history, why wouldn’t you give it to them? Are you a masochist for lame information architectures? Do you have a keyword query fetish? Are you mesmerized by their limited, internal-history based recommendation engine? I have no doubt that a properly licensed search history is the fastest route to predictably useful content. Period. If you like the old way, feel free.

    To call User-driven Search federating is like calling OpenID federation. It’s ridiculous. The data is always under the control of the user. Maybe you missed that part in the original post. Turn it on. Turn it off. Submit it to Amazon with a data rights policy or don’t submit it. Always the users’ choice. There’s nothing federated about it. Federating is what’s happening now with the behavioral targeting networks tracking you on the network and sharing profile data amongst each other behind closed doors. User-driven Search takes all the value that activity is trying to capture and makes it even more valuable by putting the user squarely in control.

    I’ve been surprised at the vehement tone of your attacks on User-driven Search. I’d like to think most members of our VRM community would entertain a benefit of a doubt, giving fellow developers an opportunity to prove the value of their effort even contribute to improving the idea, as most of us have done with your work on the Mine! I have no doubt there are some good nuggets in there, but I’m equally sure there are some major, perhaps even fundamental, flaws in it. And I’ve shared those thoughts at IIW and elsewhere, in the hope that my suggestions might offer insights that you appreciate and might help improve the outcome.

    The thing is, we’re only going to find out if any of those flaws matter–yours, mine, anybody’s–if we build it and see what happens.

    So, here’s to both of us working through the flaws faster than they sink the ship.

    Finally, I find it fascinating that you interpret User-driven Search as precluding sending your search data to your friends. Selective disclosure doesn’t have to be to a Vendor…

    Reply
  2. Neil

    You claim you “didn’t imply that hacking was morally wrong” and then go on to use words like “ripped off” “violates the quid-pro-quo trade” and “digital parasitism”. It’s clear you do think it is morally wrong. I think it is finding sensible solutions or optimisations.

    I don’t use adblocker (I just ignore the ads generally) but I am quite tempted to try it now.

    Reply
  3. Joe Andrieu

    Neil,

    The definition of hacking I was using didn’t imply immorality; violating the quid-pro-quo certainly does. I don’t have a problem with hacking per se. But if you choose to hack to achieve immoral ends, that’s immoral. Alec suggested that I used the term in an attempt to “brand” the AdBlockPlus as “morally wrong”. But that wasn’t my point at all, any more than I would say guns are morally wrong just because murderers and thugs sometimes use them for immoral ends.

    Turning off the ads with an adblocker is the same as sneaking into a live show without paying. You may do it without explicitly hurting anyone or damaging any property, but it’s still immoral. If you disagree, then we’re simply operating from different moral frameworks.

    -j

    Reply
  4. Bunny Evans

    “Turning off the ads with an adblocker is the same as sneaking into a live show without paying. You may do it without explicitly hurting anyone or damaging any property, but it’s still immoral. If you disagree, then we’re simply operating from different moral frameworks.”

    This is an awesome statement coming from the department of marketing crimethink. Trying to compare 2 different things to present the desired viewpoint. You really should be in marketing, you have the twisted thinking and variable moral standards down pat.

    To the average slug, I am sure that all those ads are a boon. However, slugs (in general), do not browse the web, search engines and occasionally people do. And if one thing gets their goat, it’s ads. Particularly ones that move, flash, glow, make noises, pop-up, pop-down, spin around and above all, are outright lies. “adultfriendfinder” and “la de da you are the 999999th visitor WIN! WIN!” for example.

    If these ads go away, I would not miss them for a moment. If your moral framework thinks this is stealing, feel free to get bent.

    The web would be a nicer place without ads.

    Progress towards this can be made by using adblockers to get rid of the most annoying blipverts.

    Why not test your “moral framework” and try to sneak into a show without paying before you make such inane comparisons.

    3/10 must try harder.

    Reply
  5. Neil

    “Turning off the ads with an adblocker is the same as sneaking into a live show without paying.”

    Err, no it is not. Not anything like the same! It is similar to going to make tea during a TV advert breaks or chatting during the adverts in a Cinema. Or more like using PVR’s like Tivo to fast forward through them. Or having someone blank out all the adverts in a newspaper. Or having special glasses that somehow screened out billboard adverts when you look at the world.

    Reply
  6. Joe Andrieu

    If you don’t support the system that finances the content, you shouldn’t consume the content. Period. If you choose to opt-out of the system, you don’t get to cherry pick which parts you want and which you don’t.

    You might be annoyed at the people who finance the content because of how they are abusing the bits of real estate they’ve paid for, but that doesn’t absolve you of the implied deal the content provider is relying on to pay the bills.

    I’m not saying you have to watch ads. That’d be ridiculous. I’m not even saying the web wouldn’t be better without ads. Certainly HBO and Showtime offer a compelling alternative to network (ad-based) TV. But unless you are willing to pay for the content in some other way–which you might do at certain sites for all I know–consuming the ads is part of the bargain.

    As for your examples, Neil, I’ll respond to each, because each has it’s flaws.

    1. make tea during a TV advert breaks

    That’s more like checking email while the ads display, or looking out your window while you scroll past the banners or resize so you can’t see them. You still see part of the ad, you still might hear it, and you are certainly risking missing part of the show because your tea takes too long.

    2. chatting during the adverts in a Cinema.

    That’s more like IMing while surfing. You’re still exposed to the ad.

    3. Or more like using PVR’s like Tivo to fast forward through them.

    And, indeed, this functionality was challenged on precisely the grounds I mentioned and removed from digital PVRs as an automated feature, IIRC.

    Because, in fact, if everyone skips the ads that pay for prime time TV, there would be no prime time TV (in the US anyway, where you aren’t taxed explicitly).

    4. Or having someone blank out all the adverts in a newspaper.

    This has also been challenged and defeated wrt online newspapers. Using copyrighted material that is presented in the context of ads, in such a way that you bypass those ads and put your own in, is illegal. You can’t just abscond with the content and use it however you like, just because its there! Just as companies can’t morally use your personal information any way they like just because you give it to them, you can’t use their information any way you like just because you can.

    There is also a distinct difference in that most newspapers have some list price for the printed paper itself. If you pay for that, then you can do whatever you want with it, other than redistributing or publishing.

    If everyone did this, it would put the newspapers out of business. Just as if everyone snuck in without paying, it would put the performers of the show out of business.

    5. Or having special glasses that somehow screened out billboard adverts when you look at the world.

    Ah hah! This is the first interesting one you mentioned. In fact, the world at large is open to all of us–at least in the free world and ignoring private property rights. So, there is no quid-pro-quo regarding your consumption thereof. And that makes all the difference.

    The websites you visit are not part of the great outdoors. They don’t exist independent of a producer and you don’t have any rights regarding their content whatsoever. The owner of the website puts their content or service on the web and offers it to you under certain terms. You may know those terms, you may not. They may be explicit in a TOS or they may be implied. But you have no inalienable rights in the matter, you have only the offer of content as presented by the website. For you to munge that content to avoid the small attention tithe of an advertisement contravenes the very reason that site exists–at least for many sites, especially those which rely on ads to finance their operation.

    I realize I’m not convincing anyone here. That’s ok. You can have your own moral framework. That’s what’s great about this crazy world we live in.

    Personally, I believe in systems that create value on a sustainable basis. Crappy ads don’t do that, but neither does subverting the ads that pay for the content.

    Reply
  7. Simon

    “I realize I’m not convincing anyone here.”

    I had a similar view of Adblocker before this discussion started.

    That said my brain filters the adverts pretty effectively as it is; although sometimes I seek out dodgy advertisers on sites I like, nothing like pay per click to help take money from con men to owners of these sites.

    Reply
  8. Melanie Rimmer

    I’m astonished that anyone can seriously argue that I’m morally obliged to look at adverts. It’s like a horrible mixture of 1984 and A Clockwork Orange. I’ve read the discussion through a couple of times, and I still can’t see anything remotely persuasive about Joe’s position. The most persuasive thing I’ve seen on this page is Alec’s assertion that the advertisers are doing it wrong. The days of Burma Shave are gone. I value the ability of the internet to help me connect to products and services I want to buy, and I value its ability to bring to my attention products and services I didn’t know about. But that mostly happens through word of mouth from people I trust, e.g. bloggers, friends on mailing lists, usenet (yes, it still exists) etc. It does not happen because of clumsy adverts, and the more intrusive, annoying and unavoidable the adverts are, the more likely I am to mentally “blacklist” that product and also the website that inflicted it on me.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts