4 ms·

"While we hope you will reconsider your malicious stance against human rights"...and you've lost me.

• imglorp 10y ago
  You didn't read the article, did you? Ads are all about privacy, malware, and arbitration of _you_. Also, did you read today's other post about ad networks and malware? https://kalkis-research.com/clickbait-and-traffic-laundering-how-ad-tech-is-destroying-the-web https://kalkis-research.com/clickbait-and-traffic-laundering...
  • bllguo 10y ago
    It was flagged. Not to mention it was a poorly written, heavily biased piece from a sketchy source.
  • Fomite 10y ago
    I did read the article. And while I don't particularly care for ads, I think suggesting they are a "malicious stance against human rights" and that ad-supported media content is an unethical business model is, well, headed well into the realm of the absurd.
    • sago 10y ago
      Odd that you read the article, and came to the conclusion they were against 'ad-supported media', since one of the three possible business models they recommended was ad-supported! The clue was in the first line of the article: "You don’t get it: It’s not about ads, it’s about behavioural targeting and tracking."
      • Fomite 10y ago
        Non-behavioral ads that don't track people are just "worse ads". And sure, they could use worse ads - but they'll need more of them to make up the difference. And that still doesn't make it a malicious violation of human rights.