5 ms·

The EU tried the soft touch approach and we just got generic cookie warnings on everything, so now we have the stricter regulation. The ultimate purpose is to p

by beojan 9y ago

The EU tried the soft touch approach and we just got generic cookie warnings on everything, so now we have the stricter regulation. The ultimate purpose is to put a stop to pervasive tracking and user-targeted advertising. Advertisers will just have to go back to targeting based on the content the ad is displayed with instead.

x0x0 9y ago
The point is that will not pay enough, so it's highly likely most free content disappears.
- iagooar 9y ago
  Than it would mean that it shouldn't have been free in the first place. I really can't wait the time you have to pay for most content. It will reduce informational clutter and improve quality of the content.
  - blfr 9y ago
    Vast majority of people aren't willing to subscribe so Internet outlets will become even more dependent on partisan funding. Many esteemed newspapers are already propaganda arms for their rich benefactors (see WaPo and Bezos) without whom they couldn't keep the lights on. This will only hasten this process for European media. Maybe accelerationism is the right approach here but it is very unlikely to improve quality.
    - tyfon 9y ago
      Many countries have laws that prevent media conglomerates like that. Specifically, here in Norway, no entity is allowed to own more than 33% of a media company like a news paper etc.
      - blfr 9y ago
        How does it work? You cannot start a newspaper unless you convince two golf buddies to join you?
    - avianlyric 9y ago
      Extreme partisan politics, and it’s associated funding, seems to be a very American thing. Many EU countries (like Germany) have proportional representation systems that eradicate two-party control. Even in the UK where we do have two-party politics, the minor parties still pull in substantial voter share. And you don’t see extreme spending during campaigns. UK politics looks pretty shabby compared to spectacular that is US policial campaigning. Anyway The point I’m trying to make is that publications relying on partisan funding isn’t really a danger in the EU. European media and politics is nothing like the US.
      - blfr 9y ago
        Americans spend a lot on politics because they're much richer than Europeans and can spend a lot on everything. You see it with healthcare, houses, cars... GDP per capita in the US is a third higher than in Germany and the US is four times more populous on top of that. The amount of wealth sloshing over there is incomparable.
- aluhut 9y ago
  So you think nobody will pay for ads because they don't get the tracking bonus? I don't believe it.
- yuhong 9y ago
  And the ad bubble themselves is partly to blame, thanks to the way the debt-based economy works. For example, Google raises housing prices in California.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Or, it gets run by enthusiasts instead of companies. We had a huge internet ecosystem before everyone was being tracked, and it has only gotten worse since.
- beojan 9y ago
  That's the point. People will click on clickbait but very few will pay for it. Without the tracking, you also lose the filter bubbles that only show you opinions you agree with.

by beojan 9y ago

x0x0 9y ago

The point is that will not pay enough, so it's highly likely most free content disappears.

iagooar 9y ago
Than it would mean that it shouldn't have been free in the first place. I really can't wait the time you have to pay for most content. It will reduce informational clutter and improve quality of the content.
- blfr 9y ago
  Vast majority of people aren't willing to subscribe so Internet outlets will become even more dependent on partisan funding. Many esteemed newspapers are already propaganda arms for their rich benefactors (see WaPo and Bezos) without whom they couldn't keep the lights on. This will only hasten this process for European media. Maybe accelerationism is the right approach here but it is very unlikely to improve quality.
  - tyfon 9y ago
    Many countries have laws that prevent media conglomerates like that. Specifically, here in Norway, no entity is allowed to own more than 33% of a media company like a news paper etc.
    - blfr 9y ago
      How does it work? You cannot start a newspaper unless you convince two golf buddies to join you?
  - avianlyric 9y ago
    Extreme partisan politics, and it’s associated funding, seems to be a very American thing. Many EU countries (like Germany) have proportional representation systems that eradicate two-party control. Even in the UK where we do have two-party politics, the minor parties still pull in substantial voter share. And you don’t see extreme spending during campaigns. UK politics looks pretty shabby compared to spectacular that is US policial campaigning. Anyway The point I’m trying to make is that publications relying on partisan funding isn’t really a danger in the EU. European media and politics is nothing like the US.
    - blfr 9y ago
      Americans spend a lot on politics because they're much richer than Europeans and can spend a lot on everything. You see it with healthcare, houses, cars... GDP per capita in the US is a third higher than in Germany and the US is four times more populous on top of that. The amount of wealth sloshing over there is incomparable.
aluhut 9y ago
So you think nobody will pay for ads because they don't get the tracking bonus? I don't believe it.
yuhong 9y ago
And the ad bubble themselves is partly to blame, thanks to the way the debt-based economy works. For example, Google raises housing prices in California.
CaptSpify 9y ago
Or, it gets run by enthusiasts instead of companies. We had a huge internet ecosystem before everyone was being tracked, and it has only gotten worse since.
beojan 9y ago
That's the point. People will click on clickbait but very few will pay for it. Without the tracking, you also lose the filter bubbles that only show you opinions you agree with.