3 ms·
Since you can buy targeted ads in many places, venues that only offer untargeted ads are not competitively attractive unless they happen to appeal directly to a
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Since you can buy targeted ads in many places, venues that only offer untargeted ads are not competitively attractive unless they happen to appeal directly to a specific demographic you're after. And building extensive user profiles on massive numbers of people is something that can be monetized and otherwise exploited in a practically countless number of ways beyond advertising. For instance many news sites have now become overtly partisan and these profiles can be used to manipulate the general political process through razor sharp targeting and 'customized' messaging.
Another thing is that even though most sites say they will not sell user information, the main motivation for that is economic, not moral. It's not a sustainable business model. Sell that information once and you've mostly blown your load, as the incremental improvements on that information are only going to be worth a fraction of the initial payload and it's something that will be get 'shared'.
If a profit model emerged where selling user information could be a sustainable business they'd go back on that in a heart beat. In the terms alongside any promises of protection for your information will be a clause stating that, 'We can change these terms whenever we like to whatever we like. You agreeing to use our site/software signifies your acceptance of the changes.'
- tannhaeuser 8y agoAnd that's why blocking targetted ads and tracking not only is convenient, but should be encouraged as a necessity and social norm to everyone - to reach a tipping point where targetted ads aren't effective. The news media business has shown they're not able to get themselves out of monopolistic and privacy-invading ad and attention economics. If news outlets can't be bothered to stop contributing to this, they're displaying cluelessness in their very business, and I don't want their journalistic spin anyway. I can always go to reuters.com to read the facts.