3 ms·
> Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue? Maybe sites will move to a model that you'll be offered to pay for their services if
by dmortin 7y ago
> Why spend money optimizing for a browser that doesn't generate revenue?
Maybe sites will move to a model that you'll be offered to pay for their services if you block trackers. So you'll have a choice of paying with your data or paying with your money.
Either way someone has to foot the bill at the end. I guess in this case most users will let trackers work instead of paying.
- re4ctor 7y agoThat then gets into the ethics of should privacy only be for the wealthy
- lotsofpulp 7y agoAnd that would get into the ethics of not allowing non wealthy people to pay with their data.
- mrmonkeyman 7y agoPaying 2 dollars is not for the "wealthy". Nice try.
- oldmanhorton 7y agoThat's fair, but before computers, not much was available for free. Getting a newspaper would generally cost money, as would using the payphone to communicate, as would so many other things that are now freely available. So, while its definitely a problem, as long as it's cheap enough for "most" people to afford it, then I think we aren't really regressing? Perhaps if we consider information on the internet to be vital to daily life, a program like food stamps could be implemented? It sounds rather over engineered but it's the only idea I've ever heard for working around the "privacy is only for the wealthy" concern.