5 ms·

I don't want to be forced to watch anything, ad, movie or programme. I don't want a personal tail following everything I, and my family who periodically share

I don't want to be forced to watch anything, ad, movie or programme. I don't want a personal tail following everything I, and my family who periodically share devices, do over years in order to "infer" what's suitable to target me for. Ever. I am more than happy to have ads on the page that are relevant to the page, or to the search terms I've just used. I would even whitelist them in my adblocking if they were served from a first party domain and were free of JS crap. Ad personalisation is not good, unless I have requested it on that particular site. Which for some sites, I very well might, so long as it remained siloed. Which would require trust. Which rules out everyone currently in Adtech.

baddox 8y ago
Do you think there is a difference between things that you don’t want and things that are immoral?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I was answering GP's questions phrased "do you want...?". Of course there is a huge difference. I find tracking across sites immoral as it makes inferences from information I have not willingly, or knowingly shared. Often very dubious inferences. Adtech as a whole seems like an industry free of ethics, happy to use every dark pattern and dubious trick (like ignoring DNT, or worse using as fingerprint), to get data anyway regardless of user wish. In every other scenario aside from online, I can decline to answer or decline the loyalty card etc. If I have attracted enough interest of the authorities to gain a real-life surveillance tail ads are the least of my worries. :)
  - goldcd 8y ago
    I think you've nailed it. I've just accepted I'm tracked and it's the price to pay for the benefits shrugs I don't see adtech as 'free of ethics' - merely what I'd do myself in their position (qualified with the legal gubbins). If you really don't want to be tracked, you've got tails, tor, crypto, whatever - and this is the opt-out if you're prepared to put the effort it (It's certainly less onerous that getting online in the pre-Aol world). My take is that there's a generation of people who've come later and just have complete cognitive-dissonance as to what pays for what they interact with. "I use Facebook - but I've no idea why they're worth billions" I've no doubt a correction is coming, and the winner should be whoever can ride this new wave.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      >"If you really don't want to be tracked, you've got tails, tor, crypto, whatever - and this is the opt-out if you're prepared to put the effort" Honestly, that's a bit like saying "if you don't want to be shot, you got bulletproof vests and bodyguards, that's your opt-out", in a world where everyone can just shoot guns randomly at each other, with very few to no repercussions.
goldcd 8y ago
Nobody "wants" to be forced to do anything. But, it's a transaction. That youtube video is free to you, the guy who made it deserves some compensation (plus the hosting from google isn't free) blah blah. Nothing works unless you provide something of value in exchange - your eyeball for that advert. No eyeball - no content. So unless you've pressed the stop button at this point, the goal is to put the least offensive thing to you on that screen for 10 seconds, with the highest click-through. My point is that there is a win-win to be had here - but they need to know about you to provide it.
- MRD85 8y ago
  IIRC YouTube has a paid version that removes ads. The option to avoid the ads is already there.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > That youtube video is free to you, the guy who made it deserves some compensation No, he doesn't. He puts it up for free, and then expects a particular way of compensation. Anywhere else this kind of behaviour is considered antisocial, and is frowned upon; it's advertising industry that tries to perpetuate a lie that they have moral high ground here. It's a deceptive practice. A fair one would be e.g. putting up a paywall. Companies prefer ads because they work better - in the same way that mugging people makes money faster than selling pretzels. Better doesn't automatically mean more ethical.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Being dependent on ads to make a profit is a bar business model, when ads are so easily blocked, and have often served as a vector for malware attacks. Especially when you just put your stuff up for free in the first place. It doesn't entitle you to compensation. I feel absolutely no obligation to support a deeply flawed business model. That's why I block all ads now and forever, and do my utmost to block any online tracking. I will never whitelist a single ad, because advertising is nothing but lies, designed to steal my time, attention and money. I do not support the "hidden payment" that advertising represents, because it is dishonest and the terms of the deal are opaque. I prefer content creators who are upfront about their funding needs and use services like Patreon or direct donations or merch sales.

baddox 8y ago

Do you think there is a difference between things that you don’t want and things that are immoral?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I was answering GP's questions phrased "do you want...?". Of course there is a huge difference. I find tracking across sites immoral as it makes inferences from information I have not willingly, or knowingly shared. Often very dubious inferences. Adtech as a whole seems like an industry free of ethics, happy to use every dark pattern and dubious trick (like ignoring DNT, or worse using as fingerprint), to get data anyway regardless of user wish. In every other scenario aside from online, I can decline to answer or decline the loyalty card etc. If I have attracted enough interest of the authorities to gain a real-life surveillance tail ads are the least of my worries. :)
- goldcd 8y ago
  I think you've nailed it. I've just accepted I'm tracked and it's the price to pay for the benefits shrugs I don't see adtech as 'free of ethics' - merely what I'd do myself in their position (qualified with the legal gubbins). If you really don't want to be tracked, you've got tails, tor, crypto, whatever - and this is the opt-out if you're prepared to put the effort it (It's certainly less onerous that getting online in the pre-Aol world). My take is that there's a generation of people who've come later and just have complete cognitive-dissonance as to what pays for what they interact with. "I use Facebook - but I've no idea why they're worth billions" I've no doubt a correction is coming, and the winner should be whoever can ride this new wave.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    >"If you really don't want to be tracked, you've got tails, tor, crypto, whatever - and this is the opt-out if you're prepared to put the effort" Honestly, that's a bit like saying "if you don't want to be shot, you got bulletproof vests and bodyguards, that's your opt-out", in a world where everyone can just shoot guns randomly at each other, with very few to no repercussions.

goldcd 8y ago

Nobody "wants" to be forced to do anything. But, it's a transaction. That youtube video is free to you, the guy who made it deserves some compensation (plus the hosting from google isn't free) blah blah. Nothing works unless you provide something of value in exchange - your eyeball for that advert. No eyeball - no content. So unless you've pressed the stop button at this point, the goal is to put the least offensive thing to you on that screen for 10 seconds, with the highest click-through. My point is that there is a win-win to be had here - but they need to know about you to provide it.

MRD85 8y ago
IIRC YouTube has a paid version that removes ads. The option to avoid the ads is already there.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> That youtube video is free to you, the guy who made it deserves some compensation No, he doesn't. He puts it up for free, and then expects a particular way of compensation. Anywhere else this kind of behaviour is considered antisocial, and is frowned upon; it's advertising industry that tries to perpetuate a lie that they have moral high ground here. It's a deceptive practice. A fair one would be e.g. putting up a paywall. Companies prefer ads because they work better - in the same way that mugging people makes money faster than selling pretzels. Better doesn't automatically mean more ethical.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
Being dependent on ads to make a profit is a bar business model, when ads are so easily blocked, and have often served as a vector for malware attacks. Especially when you just put your stuff up for free in the first place. It doesn't entitle you to compensation. I feel absolutely no obligation to support a deeply flawed business model. That's why I block all ads now and forever, and do my utmost to block any online tracking. I will never whitelist a single ad, because advertising is nothing but lies, designed to steal my time, attention and money. I do not support the "hidden payment" that advertising represents, because it is dishonest and the terms of the deal are opaque. I prefer content creators who are upfront about their funding needs and use services like Patreon or direct donations or merch sales.