4 ms·
At first I thought this was a great idea, but then I thought about it more. I think this is the digital equivalent of an angry mob throwing bricks through windo
by phyller 10y ago
At first I thought this was a great idea, but then I thought about it more. I think this is the digital equivalent of an angry mob throwing bricks through windows. We aren't doing any good, just destroying the community we live in. What would it be like if all the content creators that are incentivized by ad revenue lost their revenue? And we lost their content? I don't like being placed into an artificial bubble of customized content by tracking services, but i don't think this is the solution.
- CaptSpify 10y agoThey aren't losing their revenue. They are losing a poor method for generating said revenue. Revenue can and is gained via better methods.
- rdw 10y agoFalse dichotomy. There is a third alternative: a non-abusive advertising model takes over the industry. It's certainly plausible. All pre-internet advertising avoided tracking of individuals. There exist even now advertising agencies that cannot possibly serve up malware to their customers. Arguably Google achieved its great success by being a less-abusive advertising platform in its day.
- phyller 10y agoWhat advertising model are you suggesting? Perhaps it could be added to the Readme on the repo to help point advertisers in the right direction.
- pdkl95 10y agoClicking ads isn't vandalism, property destruction, or incitement to riot. Describing automated following of ad URLs as an "angry mob throwing bricks through windows" misleadingly associates an ad clicker with violence. This is a problem because it tends to lead to ... > destroying the community we live in. ... thinking in terms of violence.