homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.202.234
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Gmail Advertising
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google Gmail Advertising Forum

This 84 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 84 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Calif. lawmaker moves to block Google's Gmail
Drafting legislation to block gmail
quotations




msg:1554417
 10:41 pm on Apr 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

[biz.yahoo.com...]

SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 (Reuters) - A California state senator on Monday said she was drafting legislation to block Google Inc (News - Websites) .'s free e-mail service 'Gmail' because it would place advertising in personal messages after searching them for key words."

 

freeflight2




msg:1554447
 8:17 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

There are 2 possible scenarios with gmail which make me very nervous:

1.) somebody desperate for something, e.g. an organ might contact a doctor asking him how long it usually takes and cost to receive it. Answer: 7to 10 years while on the right side of the screen gmail might show ads targeting a unique word which only this particular message contains and which are offering illegal organs (written in an ambigious, not too obvious way).
Or: somebody might receive a reply from a company quoting him $****x while on the right the company's subcompanies are offering the same for $xxx, which still might be overpriced but which would appear 'cheap' at that moment.

2.) somebody really eager to find out the real names and addresses behind certain emails might send an email to all these people while setting up ads targeting certain keywords of his mail on which nobody can resist to click on and then providing their real names+address.

oneguy




msg:1554448
 8:28 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I just got an interesting voicemail. It was a friend saying that "Angie's birthday party starts at 6:00 this Saturday."
Before I got to the voicemail though, I had to listen to one ad about "Great gift ideas on eBay" and another for the "Discount Party Supply Depot."

No big deal.

Interesting. What if you had just gotten a voicemail that said...

"Angie's birthday party starts at 6:00 this Saturday. Pick up some cups and other party supplies at Party Depot [fgsdfgsdfgsdgt.com] and I'll meet you there!"

Even in her own voice... errr type. See how the parallel might not fit?

ThatAdamGuy




msg:1554449
 8:28 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi OneGuy,

I'm a huge foe of Gator and other services that blur the line of content and ads and such. I can tell you that even if Google -- which I clearly like and respect -- attempted to blur this distinction in any way (either initially or later on), I would be screaming about it.

But I strongly abhor "slippery slope" arguments in pretty much all contexts, because they're simply so malleable and unpredictable.

"I refuse to start posting on WW. After all, once I create an account and intend to just write in the AdSense forum, I'll find that I'm slowly starting to post in many other forums, to the detriment of my paying-work productivity."

Oh wait a minute, that slippery slope actually turned out to be true! :D But I'm not blaming WW. I have to take responsibility for my own actions. Similarly, if Microsoft were to try to imitate Google and in a year came up with their own new Hotmail service that interspersed ads *IN* emails, then I would certainly protest. I'd, of course, allow that other people may like it, but I'd loudly express my concerns.

The key here is that Google is really being aboveboard. The ads are so starkly separated from the content of the emails that I frankly rarely even notice them (really!). And when I do, they're listed on the SIDE under "Sponsored Links" and there's even an "About these links" link below them. This title and the explanatory link aren't in tiny font; they're in a font exactly the same size as the ads!

Sure, I have no doubt that there'll be imitators. But so, too, do all fine products and services. We don't blame the original for the crappy knockoffs (or at least we shouldn't). We instead shun the imitators.

born2drv




msg:1554450
 8:47 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>My point is that people need to pay attention to what they're doing and stop expecting someone else to hold their hand and pad everything for them.

People need to do a lot of things, but unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are idiots. This is why we need lawyers and lawmakers. If you ask Bob why he's getting all kinds of adult popups and his default home page is a porn search page, I don't think Bob really wanted that when he agreed to install the spyware.

When you buy a car, aren't you happy there are consumer protection rights that prevent you from getting a lemon, even though you signed a very lengthy contract obsolving the seller of any responsibilities to repair the car?

>>>What a user does with a message after you've sent it to them is beyond your control - whether it's being read by a machine or forwarded by the recipient. Once that message leaves your network, you have no idea who is looking at it anyway.

So we can publish content and others can profit/misuse it without our permissions or giving us any royalties? That's like us creating a website. Sure someone could easily steal our images, bandwidth, CSS layout.... but if they try to profit from it, there is legislation preventing them from doing so and we are entitled compensation.

You say, why don't we just block gmail and not respond to gmail accounts, etc. Well what if we send something to a NON-gmail user and they go and forward it to a gmail user, and google uses that to backtrack through the trail and determine info about us when we never consented. Obviously we have no control whatsoever and our content is up for grabs for Google's exploitation now.

There is no robots.txt that we can inbed in our email is there? Maybe that's the solution.

oneguy




msg:1554451
 8:50 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'm not much of a slippery slope person, either. I don't like gov regulation, either.

I *love* consumer choice. Since we're all kicking around hypotheticals, I just don't like the direction it leads in. Assuming consumers have "informed consent," I'm fine. I'm just not sure people are thinking about where this could lead and whether everyone should rubber stamp it as ok without thinking about how it makes everything different from there on out.

Gator and the like, and even worse, are probably making plans as we write.

[edited by: oneguy at 8:53 pm (utc) on April 13, 2004]

SyntheticUpper




msg:1554452
 10:32 am on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google's Gmail could be blocked

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

Marval




msg:1554453
 9:15 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

I sure hope Google fights this one - everybody that has a problem with privacy on the net ought to read their ISPs TOS and figure out that there is no privacy guaranteed anywhere, sure you can accomplish it with specific dealings you have with secure transfers, otherwise stop thinking that the government has any obligation to protect your privacy (no it really is not guaranteed in the Constitution no matter how many people quote that matter-of-factly)
Top that with these clueless Senators from Calif. (last year they tried to ban all radioactive material in Calif - they forgot you need the stuff to do dental xrays) who all have their own agenda and need the publicity -never mind </rant off>

digitalv




msg:1554454
 9:19 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

born2drv,

You have got to be kidding me. Hey here's something you didn't think of ... what if you send an e-mail to someone and they forward it to everyone in their address book! Is that Google's fault too?

When you send an e-mail, what happens to it is out of your hands - period. There is nothing you can do about that. Don't like it? Don't send ANY email to ANYONE.

Sure, maybe "Bob" didn't want the popups and spyware - but if he had read the agreement he freakin AGREED TO when he signed up, he signed up, he wouldn't have had that problem and could have opted out of installing the product. Anyone who agrees to something without knowing WHAT they're agreeing to is an idiot.

No contract that I've ever signed when buying a car released the dealer from responsibility of repair while under warranty. I read every word of everything I sign or agree to. Are you telling me that you went out and bought a car without reading the contract?

If you're that lazy/ignorant you deserve to get burned ...

I don't mean this to be a flame or anything, but jeeze ... I'm tired of government hand-holding. That is the REASON the rest of the world calls us Lazy. Heck, it's the reason it's TRUE - everything you just said reinforces my opinion even more.

Ever heard the phrase "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. TEACH a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."? Well, that applies to human stupidity too... protect someone today and they might be ok, but TEACH THEM TO PROTECT THEMSELVES and you won't NEED to hold their hand for every little friggin thing.

born2drv




msg:1554455
 9:50 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>>if you send an e-mail to someone and they forward it to everyone in their address book! Is that Google's fault too?

I never said I cared if my emails got forwarded to X amount of people. But when a company profits from my content and I am not compesated, then yes.. it is Google's fault.

>>>Anyone who agrees to something without knowing WHAT they're agreeing to is an idiot.

I agree with you. But it happens all the time and many shady businesses try to take advantage of these "idiots"

This is why some states have mandatory 24-hour return policies in some stores... or why many other laws out there exist. To prevent people from making mistakes.

You found the spyware embedded in the TOS your friend sent you with the media file because you're a net-expert so to speak. We all live and breath this stuff. This doesn't mean everyone else does and this is why consumer laws exist to protect the people who just don't know any better.

Personally I would love to see gmail come out too, but the ads should be disabled by default and OPT-IN if the user requests it... that way they clearly understand what they are enabling and what it does. And there needs to be in place a system where emails sent to gmail accounts can have a robots.txt file or something imbedded that Google will respect and not show any ads for and remain unarchived should the author of the content request it.

chicagohh




msg:1554456
 10:00 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

but unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are idiots

Now, that is not nice. Which country has the non-idiots?

born2drv




msg:1554457
 10:25 pm on Apr 13, 2004 (gmt 0)

Poland, all those Polish people are sharp :P ... I'm just kidding... I meant to say everyone, but since we were talking about US law, I said Americans.

[off topic]I think I read somewhere that the average person is America possesses an IQ of only 98. So 50% of American's have an IQ of 98 or less... pretty scary when you think about it. Bill Clinton's was 182 and George W's is exactly half.... 91 :)[/off topic]

Back to the discussion, I think the government should draft legislation preventing all software companies from installing any privacy invading software should we not clearly opt-in for it. And not through 10 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo or even 1 page of easily read mumbo jumbo in red bold flashing text. If they can't clearly market the product or service for what it really is, then it shouldn't be allowed to be installed.

Do you really think Google will pitch gmail as "the best targeted ads in email you'll actually find relevent" .. or will they pitch it rather as a "big storage, low spam, easily searchable email account" and quietly leave out how all those ads are being generated?

rfgdxm1




msg:1554458
 12:29 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Do you really think Google will pitch gmail as "the best targeted ads in email you'll actually find relevent" .. or will they pitch it rather as a "big storage, low spam, easily searchable email account" and quietly leave out how all those ads are being generated?

Do people really care about the ads? And, if they market it as a "big storage, low spam, easily searchable email account", then that means they are specifically targeting consumers who *want* their e-mail archived. Why else would you need 1 GB storage otherwise?

ThatAdamGuy




msg:1554459
 12:48 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Okay, I'm going to do some unpaid work here for Google (sheesh) and rewrite part of their info page.

What they write:
8. Are there ads in Gmail?
There are no pop-ups or banner ads in Gmail. Gmail does include relevant text ads that are similar to the ads appearing on the right side of Google search results pages. The matching of ads to content is a completely automated process performed by computers using the same technology that powers the Google AdSense program. This technology already places targeted ads on thousands of sites across the web by quickly analyzing the content of pages and determining which ads are most relevant to them. No humans read your email to target the ads, and no email content or other personally identifiable information is ever provided to advertisers.

What I'd write:
8. Are there ads in Gmail?
Yes. Gmail occasionally shows ads, links to related sites, or both discreetly to the right of the emails you receive. In order to do this, Google's computers (never humans!) scan your mail much like the spam filters you're accustomed to and display ads that are related to the content of each individual mail. This allows the system to automatically show ads that are likely to interest you; sports ads when your buddies email you about their favorite teams, camera ads when your sister writes you for digital camera advice.

Of course, we respect your privacy and have designed our system to be enjoyable and never distracting. That's why...
- You'll NEVER see any popups, popunders, or graphical ads. We hate them just like you do.
- We don't put ads or even little tags in the messages you send. Your messages are your own!
- We don't stick ads inside the emails you receive. There's no blurring of content with ads, ever.

Sure, it's a bit longer. But it avoids the techie speak (how many people really know -- or care -- what AdSense is!?) and directly reassures people that Gmail is usable, respectful, and safe.

[Edited for typo]

[edited by: ThatAdamGuy at 1:05 am (utc) on April 14, 2004]

rfgdxm1




msg:1554460
 12:58 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

I like your rewording ThatAdamGuy. MUCH better.

Even_Steven




msg:1554461
 3:24 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

One need only look at the author of this bill to understand its insanity, Liz Figueroa. We Californians are familiar with her ultra-left-wing, anti-business, socialist ideology.

Figueroa has been an out-spoken opponent against personal responsibility. She, along with many of her Democrat collegues in the Legislature have been trying to prevent people from being informed and educated, in hopes of controlling them like sheep, and keeping them dependent on the State for their security.

This bill is exactly that. It seeks to destroy something that would give the people enormous freedom to not only communicate without additional cost, but to keep all their old emails, and be able to find them easily.

This is also a great way for her to get her name in the public spotlight. Her we have her name being mentioned with the world's most popular website, all over the news.

Kerrin




msg:1554462
 3:31 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

I just got an interesting voicemail. It was a friend saying that "Angie's birthday party starts at 6:00 this Saturday."
Before I got to the voicemail though, I had to listen to one ad about "Great gift ideas on eBay" and another for the "Discount Party Supply Depot."
No big deal

What if the US Postal Service opened your personal letters/invoices/statements, scanned their contents and printed targeted ads on them before they were delivered to you?

ThatAdamGuy




msg:1554463
 3:55 am on Apr 12, 2004 (gmt 0)

I was using my Yahoo Mail account today, and was reminded that I can mark spam as NOT SPAM, or I can tell Yahoo that mail that got through to my inbox IS SPAM.

What does this do? Do Yahoo and MSN and other Webmail providers use Bayesian or other adaptive filtering in their anti-spam systems? If so, don't they then have to scan the full content of each incoming mail -- or at least each corrected mail? And furthermore, doesn't this also mean that Yahoo and MSN and all the others are then COMPILING A PROFILE ON EACH USER? After all, if the system is to learn what jsmith197 thinks is spam and isn't spam, doesn't it have to keep a partial record of the email content jsmith197 receives?

And this, then, leads us to Gmail. Google has noted that they will not keep a record of targeting info gleaned from each email past the moment they place each ad. Given this, how does Gmail's anti-spam system work? If it doesn't keep track of what I consider spam and not-spam, then I'd think it's going to be a very inefficient spam blocker. And if it does keep track of this information, isn't this then a sort of profiling?

john_k




msg:1554464
 3:55 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

What if the US Postal Service opened your personal letters/invoices/statements, scanned their contents and printed targeted ads on them before they were delivered to you?

I'm with you - The "no big deal" was typed with sarcasm (I heard it when I typed it anyway).

Fortunately, the "Founding Fathers" were all over that one. Although advertising had barely been invented and their motivation was to ensure service to most areas. Still, with the deteriorating state of email today, it might not be too long before we are sending email through a central agency of some type. (Bill G. and friends recently recommended an email stamp)

PLEASE don't interpret that to mean I think a central email agency would be good. It's just that things cannot continue like they are, so something has to change.

This whole GMail topic and the uproar it has generated just make me shake my head. Time to start checking into woodworking or vegetable farming again. Speaking of vegetables, yes, Figueroa is really a piece of work.

digitalv




msg:1554465
 4:14 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Remember back in the days when the Internet was cool?

You know, before the government stepped in and started legislating it. One more year and I can retire ... then you morons can keep your crappy padded Internet. You'll find my computers for sale on eBay when that day comes, I'm done.

pleeker




msg:1554466
 6:04 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

What if the US Postal Service opened your personal letters/invoices/statements, scanned their contents and printed targeted ads on them before they were delivered to you?

What if Google decided that they had to charge 37 cents per email received in order to give users that enormo-sized storage capacity and avoid using targeted ads to pay their costs? It's a silly comparison....

If sending a letter through the postal service was free, the analogy might carry a little weight. But we pay 37 cents for every item we send, and that's paying (in part) for the secure delivery of the item.

Then there's UPS, where you have to declare the contents of your package, and if you read the fine print, UPS "reserves the right ... to open and inspect any package tendered to it for transportation."

TinkyWinky




msg:1554467
 6:53 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

What if the US Postal Service opened your personal letters...

They'd probably find a lot more grass being sent between stressed out webmasters that's what ;)

mbauser2




msg:1554468
 6:56 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Writing you an email, and having no idea what will be hyperlinked and to whom by the time it hits your inbox.

You don't have a right to control what software I read my e-mail with. Period. If you think otherwise, you are a bigger problem than anything Google is capable of doing, because you want to come into my home and control my computer.

I get annoyed when control freaks try to pretend they're protecting my liberties.

TinkyWinky




msg:1554469
 7:01 am on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

One more year and I can retire

digitalv - you know that day will never come - you will never leave the Internet..... ;)

oneguy




msg:1554470
 3:35 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

You don't have a right to control what software I read my e-mail with. Period. If you think otherwise, you are a bigger problem than anything Google is capable of doing, because you want to come into my home and control my computer.

I get annoyed when control freaks try to pretend they're protecting my liberties.

lol. I'm not a control freak.

I'm talking about protecting the integrity of my own private communications with people. If I write you an email and you prefer software that shows you a blank screen instead (and it sounds like you might if I were to write you), that's fine. I only want to know that you know it's your software doing it and not me sending you blank emails. I don't want to be impersonated somehow.

Just like gator... If you know what it does, purposely installed it, and prefer it, fine. That's hardly ever the case.

karmov




msg:1554471
 4:50 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is because, as has been stated in other threads here, Google isn't doing anything differently than any other ISP.

Google's computers parse, display, store, and backup received mail.

A little late replying here, but the problem isn't with them parsing the e-mail it's with interpreting the e-mail's meaning. That's where the privacy is lost.

And someone else mentioned that since e-mail is sent in plain text there's no real way to guarantee privacy. I can't argue that (though there are encryption techniques, etc... but few use them) but what gmail is doing is guaranteeing that neither person will have privacy. That's fine and dandy for the person who signed up for that, but not so good for the person at the other end.

I'm not a privacy expert. Just what I consider to be a reasonable human being. So all of my statements are based on what I feel are invasions of privacy, not based on any written law in the U.S. or my own country for that matter.

GlynMusica




msg:1554472
 5:16 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

The Internet is no longer free.

Quid pro Quo on the Gmail.

Everything is scanned. Eveything.

If you want private comms get two paper cups and a piece of string and make your own telephone line.

If not, live with it, or record it and write a book about it when it's over.

Glyn.

TinkyWinky




msg:1554473
 5:44 pm on Apr 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Right - call me cynical but is this all just a very good way to get FREE advertising across the globe for Google?

Just seen a big article on 6 O'clock BBC News about privacy and GMail .... but more than that it came across to me like a simple ad with Google logo filling 2/3rds the screen and a 4 minute ramble from various Privacy experts.

So lets look at this:

Scenario:

Sergey and Larry consult a PR agent as they've had some bad recent press over the quality of results and Florida updates etc etc etc over dinner and beers...

Option:

PR agent says, instead of paying for positive PR to counter this why not....look at negative PR as a way of getting yourselves in the forefront of public debate over an issue that divides the 'common Man' (and woman obviously). This will have the effect of deflecting users away from the crap results to start worrying about the potential for ads and privacy issues

Twist:

Sergey and Larry (or shoudl that be Larry and Sergey?) come clean and say that GMail will not bust people's Privacy and they are really listening to the concerns of the users on this one.

Outcome:

Everyone's forgotten about the crappy results (which in fact gives time to correct them some what) and everyone thinks that Google really does listen to their users and funnily enough they want to float and what a great company...

If that sounds like a poppycock story, think about a very very popular "contact your old school friends" site in the UK that put out what had to be a fake "For Sale" board up to get in front of the cameras and boost awareness and Free advertising!

Who says spin doesn;t work for some companies!

All IMHO and with no legal recourse - obviously! ;)

Brett_Tabke




msg:1554474
 6:15 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Anyone heard any progress on the proposed legislation? Has the bill entered the hopper?

john_k




msg:1554475
 6:31 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Anyone heard any progress on the proposed legislation?

Sure Brett - stir up the hornets nest again! ;)

But seriously - can't you folks in California pass some type of Proposition against frivolous legislation? Or at least against really stupid legislation?

bird




msg:1554476
 7:41 pm on Apr 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

In the months ahead, after yahoo and msn follow suit, and after the likes of gator start offering free email, what makes you think that you'll be able to know the difference between hyperlinks I sent you and hyperlinks that were inserted into my email without my permission?

So you're bashing Google for what you think Microsoft or Yahoo (two completely seperate and independent organisations) might do in the future?

I'm constantly amazed at the logic that keeps surfacing in this kind of threads...

digitalv




msg:1554477
 12:39 am on Apr 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Here's a question for all of you anti-gmail people... does your ISP have a server-based SPAM filter? Or do you use Yahoo mail?

You do know that SPAM filters work in an almost identical manner as Google's GMAIL is going to work, don't you? Anti-spam software scans (aka "reads") each message in full to determine whether it is spam or not, then takes the appropriate action with the e-mail. It's NOT based on the headers/sender - it is based on the actual CONTENTS of the message.

Yep, that's right - every time you receive a message those pesky SPAM filters are READING YOUR MAIL! OH MY GOD! NOOOOOO!

Seriously though ... what do you anti-gmail people think of that? I want to know :) Are you going to stop using spam blockers because you don't want your mail scanned?

This 84 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 84 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Gmail Advertising
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved