If you mAil someone an normal business mail with ads on it it is illegal.

Is that German to German only? I've never heard of that before and I regularly send bulk emails there however they were all opt-in originally.

Hard to think that the combined money and influence of Google, the other search engines, Facebook, the publishers and (most importantly) the advertisers couldn't prevent this from ever going into effect.

Do you want to know a funny thing? I'm in Europe and I hardly ever notice ads on my phone!

@RedBar

Do you want to know a funny thing?

That's fixable, try the following:

1. Get a new phone, preferably Android.
2. Use Stock browser that came with the phone with no AdBlockers and please Allow all third party cookies with JS & Flash enabled, all the way.
3. Stop using the Incognito and Private Tab features.
4. Search for something obscure and pick a URL of what you think might be a useless site(MFA).

If all that fails, change the mobile ISP.

HTH

In germany we have some pritty strict laws about ads. If you mAil someone an normal business mail with ads on it it is illegal. You have to opt-in this mails! So why is displaying google ads All over the internet not illegal?

There's a big difference between ads on Web sites and ads in e-mails.

I doubt very much whether displaying ads on Web sites is illegal anywhere. Extortion, on the other hand, is illegal in all but the most corrupt countries.

BTW, if there's any truth to these rumors (and if the phone companies are stupid enough to extort Google), the net effect will to make Google look like the good guy. Talk about a blessing in disguise!

Redbar, as far as i know, is german only. All kinds of advertising in emails are prohibited as long there is no opt-in. It is creazy cause even a registration mail (that you filled on your own) is potentially advertising! So i have never been asked by google about their ads? Wow, the more i think of it, the more it looks like google offends against german laws.

Don't get your hopes up about Germany requiring opt-in ads on Web sites. Springer, Burda, and other big German publishers wield too much political influence for that to happen.

Here's the part I'm not getting. Did I miss the explanation? How are websites to be funded? This is not an issue in e-commerce, or in websites associated with a physical business --whether commercial, charitable or educational-- where the cost of maintaining a website is simply part of your overhead. But for comparison purposes, non-commerical television gets its money from two places: users and government. (I exclude corporate sponsors, because those do demand some visible acknowledgement. Advertising by another name.) Are European mobile networks volunteering to fund websites directly? How is this to be administered? Or do they envision a world where users are so happy not to be bombarded with advertising, they spontaneously and voluntarily send money to every site they visit?

Lucy24: The idea, according to the article, is to pressure Google into sharing money with the networks. In other words, it isn't about getting rid of advertising, it's about imposing a private tax on Google's advertising revenue.

That's fixable, try the following:

1. Get a new phone, preferably Android.

Aha, I use Lumia and Bing therefore tried Google and really couldn't see any problems, I must be going to the wrong sites!

I read the article and came away with a different gut feeling. The end result of this will be fewer sites for the already rich to compete with.

o.O

The idea, according to the article, is to pressure Google into sharing money with the networks.

Why do I start thinking about the "commissions" that have to be paid to get business deals in certain countries?

I see several issues here.
1. The fact that somebody would block Google ads across a network would only cause Google to either take measures to circumvent the issue or block the traffic from there altogether.
2. Adwords and adsense are two different programs. While Google will do whatever to protect their adwords revenue they don't give a crud about the publishers on adsense.
3. If Adsense revenue is cut down, the people who are going to be suffering from the issue will be the publishers who use adsense to make a living.
4. I love how people are unwilling to put up with ads but are also not willing to pay for the content they consume. Where is the network that costs the user 10 bucks a month and frees them of ads, using the money to pay for the publishers? it doesn't exist because people feel entitled.

People don't notice that by blocking ads they're only hurting themselves. On Youtube, Google keeps a 40% cut. Meaning that by blocking ads on Youtube 60% of the 'pain' you're causing is caused to the content producer. Do you really want to hurt your favourite publishers?

If ad-heavy sites like Daily Mail, Fox, Amazon and the like start getting their ads blocked and these sites then start hitting back by blocking those mobile users from seeing their site at all, I know who'll win that war.

we'll block a few of your ads vs. we'll block our whole site, go on, you blink first

Users should be empowered to do what they want. Effective ad blockers exist, which is why I don't see why filtering content on the ISP/router level is good for the free flow of information. If these ISPs want to take aim at Google, they should do it another way. But with much of the internet economy getting swallowed up by Google, finding a fair and reasonable way to compete with a giant will be challenging without the help of regulators.

@CSharp
-- People don't notice that by blocking ads they're only hurting themselves. ---

Hmmm, I don't feel hurt at all. As a matter of fact I get the things/research done much quicker. My attention is not drifting away from the original thought/task.

And, I couldn't care less if poor schmuck after searching GOOG for "How to fix the porch" ended up on YouTube and then wasted 2 hours watching questionable(with Ads) content looking over his shoulder - a chance for already slightly developed ADD to be stimulated ;)

@blend27 How can people be so self-centered and selfish? Have you ever thought that the reason Google exists and helps you do your research is the fact that they're selling ads? Is it better to have ads or would you rather go to a library and pick up the book you needed to do your research and flip through the pages?

No, because your excuse is pitiful. If you didn't like the fact that you got ads on the Internet then you should get your ass off the chair and go the old fashioned way. But that takes effort, doesn't it? Get rid of that entitlement, the world doesn't exist for your entertainment - if you want free content on the web you will have to put up with ads, that's the way the world works.

Before I go, Let me ask you. When you block the ads on blogs / youtube / etc. Do you give a tip to the user who produced the content? Do you say "Hey, this was valuable to me. I'm gonna find their donate button and give them a few bucks"?

i think blend27 is just telling the truth... that the average person on the street doesn't care how a site is financed. why should they? it's got nothing to do with them.

i can't see this being legal though.
imagine if newsagents started ripping all of the adverts out of magazines before selling them. that is basically what these mobile network providers would be doing
we need a law that says websites should be delivered as-is, and not tampered with.

if this goes ahead then it's a bit like censorship i suppose -- people will be deciding what websites are allowed to display.

I think the idea behind this is to give ISPs the ability to charge for advertising over their network the same way that radio and tv do.... unfortunately the internet hasn't worked that way from day one. Trying to do this now is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. If is is allowed you can be sure that will affect all levels of doing business on the internet!

In USA the FCC might get in the way. Under Title II (the so called net neutrality rules) the whole idea is to insure that ALL cont3ent runs at the same rate/speed for everyone... and no ISP can modify, throttle or deny content. So killing ads at the ISP is probably not allowed. End users, on the other hand, can modify their end stream anyway they wish, and have been since day early (remember when a commercial/ad on radio or tv was the perfect excuse to go to the kitchen or make a pit stop?).

No, because your excuse is pitiful. If you didn't like the fact that you got ads on the Internet then you should get your ass off the chair and go the old fashioned way. But that takes effort, doesn't it?

Not the most courteous reply I've ever seen. We're here to discuss, not to abuse. If this is the level we've sunk to I'm out of here.

I think the idea behind this is to give ISPs the ability to charge for advertising over their network the same way that radio and tv do...

It isn't the same thing at all. Radio and TV networks are content networks, while wireless providers are common carriers.

According to the logic behind this Mafia scheme, the wireless providers are entitled to extract a "vig" from any site whose content is distributed through their networks. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. The same demands could be made of independent information sites, e-commerce sites, promotional sites for businesses, and so on.

In other words, the wireless provider bills Joe User for access to the Internet, then sends another bill to the Internet for access to Joe User.

@superclown2 My response may not have been set in the right tone. This is just an issue that bothers me personally and that I feel is overlooked by people. People are shortsighted if they think AdBlock is doing them a favour. If every user on the net was using Adblock we'd have no Google, Twitter, Facebook and barely any blogging.

I apologize for the tone, but the point stands. It is short sighted and selfish to block ads, if you don't like them there's always the red close button.

@londrum That is the problem. People not caring about the content they consume is gonna be the downfall of the system and the reason why content will either be stopped being made or hidden behind a paywall like Vessel provides for video.

If every user on the net was using Adblock we'd have no Google, Twitter, Facebook and barely any blogging.

You make it sound like "the good old days" of the 20th century web.

...

If every user on the net was using Adblock we'd have no Google, Twitter, Facebook and barely any blogging.

Put like that..
For someone who was making sites and "on the net" before all of those companies..and old enough to remember Fravia..
Sounds like a real good plan..;)

It would probably cut right back on the scrapers too..:)
Little reason to scrape the content and images of others if you* couldn't just slap an adsense ( also known around these parts as "webmaster welfare" ) code around what you* scraped,
or post it as yours* on facebook et al and wait for the money to roll in..:)

"you" and "yours" directed at no-one in particular in this thread..

If everyone starts using adblockers or there was no adsense, only people dedicated and passionate about their niche would have websites, just like it used to be. The spammers would go away along with all the crappy made for sdsense sites. No offense to anyone here!

Research would again be fun, reliable and educational.

and bring back vinyl and mono as well, and opal fruits

@CSharp

@blend27 How can people be so self-centered and selfish? Have you ever thought that the reason Google exists and helps you do your research is the fact that they're selling ads? Is it better to have ads or would you rather go to a library and pick up the book you needed to do your research and flip through the pages?

SInce You have mentioned Google; The only reason that Goog exists is cause from the get go honest webmasters thought they had found a partner that they could trust with their content to be found on a Search Engine. Then the rest happened...

No, because your excuse is pitiful. If you didn't like the fact that you got ads on the Internet then you should get your ass off the chair and go the old fashioned way. But that takes effort, doesn't it? Get rid of that entitlement, the world doesn't exist for your entertainment - if you want free content on the web you will have to put up with ads, that's the way the world works.

Take it easy there sparky. There is plenty of free content on this forum for example, I've only seen Ads by Goog here once, I think it was April's Fool Joke a few Years back.

Before I go, Let me ask you. When you block the ads on blogs / youtube / etc. Do you give a tip to the user who produced the content? Do you say "Hey, this was valuable to me. I'm gonna find their donate button and give them a few bucks"?

Yep, There is a button like that in the top right corner of this page. I leave a few bucks once in a while.


Oh, and btw, Welcome to WebmasterWorld CSharp.

Do you really want to hurt your favourite publishers?

I don't think YouTube really works as a point of comparison to other types of internet advertising. In general you've got five seconds to convince the viewer that your ad contains something of interest to them. Or fifteen seconds for the viewer to take a bathroom break, depending on ad type. As a proportion of a ten-minute program, that's not very much.

An ISP is not equivalent to a television network. It's equivalent to a cable or satellite provider.

Why do I start thinking about the "commissions" that have to be paid to get business deals in certain countries?

Yes, that's why I thought about "currently legal in the western world". You can charge people to drive on a highway-- but if someone first paid for the privilege of building it, that's generally frowned upon.