3 ms·

Which is why I think the long term reality of what we'll end up with is not simply ad blocking but blocking of the privacy violating tracking. There's two issu

by meritt 11y ago

Which is why I think the long term reality of what we'll end up with is not simply ad blocking but blocking of the privacy violating tracking. There's two issues here only one of which I think is worth fighting: 1) Do companies have the right to serve advertisements in exchange for consumption of their content? I'd agree they do. 2) Do companies have the right to track your every move across the web and use that to improve the efficacy of #1? Absolutely not.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
It sounds like everyone's more-or-less in agreement, although there remains a group of us that would, on balance, prefer to pay actual money than have to consume advertising. If companies have the right to serve advertisements, then they also have the duty to ensure those advertisements are a) not harmful to the consumer b) don't exceed a given file-size c) don't prevent the consumer from continuing whatever journey they were on. That's in rough order of importance/realism. Advertising providers are currently failing on all three of these, and it's hardly a surprise that the market is reacting by preventing all advertising, even that which might be deemed acceptable. The industry needs to fix this soon or it's going to destroy itself. As a consumer, I don't mind - alternative content will prevail - but from the companies' point of view, they need to fix this problem urgently.
cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
> Do companies have the right to serve advertisements in exchange for consumption of their content? They have the right to put whatever they want into the page as the author of the content. The realities of the Web and HTML being what they are make avoiding advertising quite trivial, especially when the advertisements are large video or image files. If you want to serve advertisements that are less than trivial to block then the future of that is likely going to be either native advertisement where the entire story/content piece is the advertisement or advertisement bound directly into the final story and served as a single request. You have the right to be on the street corner yelling your paranoid conspiracy theories at people. They have the right to ignore you.

by meritt 11y ago

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

It sounds like everyone's more-or-less in agreement, although there remains a group of us that would, on balance, prefer to pay actual money than have to consume advertising. If companies have the right to serve advertisements, then they also have the duty to ensure those advertisements are a) not harmful to the consumer b) don't exceed a given file-size c) don't prevent the consumer from continuing whatever journey they were on. That's in rough order of importance/realism. Advertising providers are currently failing on all three of these, and it's hardly a surprise that the market is reacting by preventing all advertising, even that which might be deemed acceptable. The industry needs to fix this soon or it's going to destroy itself. As a consumer, I don't mind - alternative content will prevail - but from the companies' point of view, they need to fix this problem urgently.

cuckcuckspruce 11y ago

> Do companies have the right to serve advertisements in exchange for consumption of their content? They have the right to put whatever they want into the page as the author of the content. The realities of the Web and HTML being what they are make avoiding advertising quite trivial, especially when the advertisements are large video or image files. If you want to serve advertisements that are less than trivial to block then the future of that is likely going to be either native advertisement where the entire story/content piece is the advertisement or advertisement bound directly into the final story and served as a single request. You have the right to be on the street corner yelling your paranoid conspiracy theories at people. They have the right to ignore you.