3 ms·
> Ads are not inherently evil, the omnipresent associated tracking and surveillance is. Do you really not see how thinking "tracking" is evil is an inherently
by morgante 10y ago
> Ads are not inherently evil, the omnipresent associated tracking and surveillance is.
Do you really not see how thinking "tracking" is evil is an inherently ideological statement?
I do not care if Google tracks literally everything I do online. I don't consider it evil and in fact willingly opt-in to tracking.
- bigbugbag 10y agoI admit I have made a mistake in following your choice of wording. The good/evil dichotomy is rather inappropriate as it is an ideological statement itself. Let me rephrase that differently: as a matter of fact privacy is a requirement for freedom. Tracking by definition destroys (or at the very least entails) privacy, thus effectively preventing freedom from emerging. Then it is a matter of personal preferences. Personal preferences may differ on the desirability of freedom of self or others. It is said that those who care for freedom will act in a way providing freedom for everyone, the others others will act selfishly and enjoy the freedom provided by those who care. Though it should be noted that ABP and UBO are two completely different things. ABP is an adblocker, it aims at making money filtering and selling ads. UBO is a general-purpose blocker, its main goal is to help users neutralize the privacy-invading apparatus of which the visible part is ads. That's why UBO features options to block webrtc, remote font, link prefetch, hyperlink auditing and beacon while ABP has none of this but features acceptable ads.