4 ms·
That is a solved problem already as much as it could be at this point. Ads people played hardball, now they have to face the consequences. I would rather call i
by a_imho 11y ago
That is a solved problem already as much as it could be at this point. Ads people played hardball, now they have to face the consequences. I would rather call it some kind of adscheme, than a browser, really. And what is the incentive to buy into someone else adscheme? A pittance? Arrogant and dishonest. I will not believe they are more concerned about tracking than ad money for a minute. You can have an anti tracking browser without any kind of ads, full stop.
- sp332 11y agoThe problem is that if sites don't get money, they can't afford to produce content. If you want content, you have to pay for it. This is a way to deliver ads without tracking.
- a_imho 11y ago>This is a way to deliver ads without tracking. Now we are talking, let's cut the we love browsers PR talk. So we are back to the financing content discussion again, and they offer disrupting ads with well, more ads. Because it will be so much better this time if it is them who make a cut. Users are not that gullible, sorry. There are many more bad properties of ads, and the pro people try to argue is that they support content. It is pure fud. Why should I care if some content disappears I would not pay for anyway? And that is a big if, I would argue declining margins at most. Yet there are still many other ways to sponsor content (no pun), often discussed on HN.