Big Name Advertisers Tap Dance Around Accusations Of Supporting Adware Companies

from the just-'fess-up dept

Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about plenty of big name companies who advertise on various adware networks, generally pissing off people who never wanted the ads on their computers. The Associated Press has pretty much written an identical article about well known companies that buy ads on adware networks. This one, though has some quotes from advertisers who all try to tap dance around the issue by again pretending that they don't really understand why people hate adware. They all seem to say that they're careful not to get involved with companies that spy on users. However, again, that's not the biggest issue for most users. Instead, it's the fact that the software is installed surreptitiously. That's the issue that these advertisers don't address -- pretending that people are only concerned about the spying part, rather than slowing down their computer and filling up their screen with ads they don't want.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • identicon
    nonuser, 25 Jun 2005 @ 8:03am

    plausible deniability

    This sounds similar to how file sharing networks operate, in that there are multiple tiers and diffused responsibility... the big names are shocked, Shocked! when the complaints roll in.

    People should keep stuff like this in mind when they go after the RIAA and MPAA's enforcement activity. Just because the digital era makes something technologically easy to do and almost impossible to shut down, doesn't mean that behavior should be legalized. One could just as easily attack the reports of lost business and consumer productivity due to adware and spyware, as Mike and others have attacked the RIAA's studies on lost profits due to file sharing.

    Some things are just common sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2005 @ 1:58pm

      Re: plausible deniability

      " file sharing networks operate, in that there are multiple tiers and diffused responsibility..."

      Tell that to the grandmother sued by the RIAA even though it was obvious she was not a Britney Spears fan. This diffused responsibility only seems to hold water when it is corporations and their associates. Who knows of a web site tracking what companies are using these slimeball marketers? Thanks to the magic of Firefox, I have not been infected with a single piece of this crap, so I really do not know who is currently using these companies...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.