4 ms·

> A Criteo spokeswoman said that by making the ad-blocking feature automatic in Safari, Apple “does not truly promote choice for the users of its browser.” Tha

> A Criteo spokeswoman said that by making the ad-blocking feature automatic in Safari, Apple “does not truly promote choice for the users of its browser.” That's an... interesting take on the situation.

iscrewyou 7y ago
Solution would be pop ups asking for each choice on the device....kind of like the way ad agencies like it.
saagarjha 7y ago
Apple doesn't promote choice, but it's not because Intelligent Tracking Prevention is on by default. (Also, it's not an "ad-blocking" feature…)
Ididntdothis 7y ago
Whenever I hear a lobbyist or business person talk about “choice” or “freedom” it’s usually bad for people....
- lostlogin 7y ago
  You’ve forgotten to include politicians.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I think it's reasonable to think of politicians as mouthpieces for lobbyists - most of them will become lobbyists after losing a reelection anyways.
artyomavanesov 7y ago
People don't use browsers to look at ads. So from a user standpoint ads shouldn't be there in the first place.
- ddlatham 7y ago
  People don't go to the grocery store to give their money to the cashiers. So from a user standpoint the cash registers shouldn't be there in the first place. The ads typically are paying for what the users are going to the website for. I don't like it, but most users seem to prefer visiting sites with ads over sites they have to pay directly for. I hate how intrusive and abusive many ads can be, block ads on many sites, pay to subscribe to some sites, and hope other models succeed someday, but have to acknowledge that ads do serve a purpose.
  - artyomavanesov 7y ago
    I agree that ads serve their purpose. Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place. My point is indeed that people go to grocery stores to buy food, not to spend money. Doesn't mean cashiers aren't justified.
    - visarga 7y ago
      > Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place. The desperation about monetising ads usually makes them crappy website creators. They would just fill pages with low quality articles propped up by SEO. I prefer the sources that don't earn money on advertising for quality of content.
guareber 7y ago
Everything Criteo says is just terrible. They're about as borderline legal as it gets. I'm 100% expecting them to get massive GDPR related fines in 2020.

iscrewyou 7y ago

Solution would be pop ups asking for each choice on the device....kind of like the way ad agencies like it.

saagarjha 7y ago

Apple doesn't promote choice, but it's not because Intelligent Tracking Prevention is on by default. (Also, it's not an "ad-blocking" feature…)

Ididntdothis 7y ago

Whenever I hear a lobbyist or business person talk about “choice” or “freedom” it’s usually bad for people....

lostlogin 7y ago
You’ve forgotten to include politicians.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think it's reasonable to think of politicians as mouthpieces for lobbyists - most of them will become lobbyists after losing a reelection anyways.

artyomavanesov 7y ago

People don't use browsers to look at ads. So from a user standpoint ads shouldn't be there in the first place.

ddlatham 7y ago
People don't go to the grocery store to give their money to the cashiers. So from a user standpoint the cash registers shouldn't be there in the first place. The ads typically are paying for what the users are going to the website for. I don't like it, but most users seem to prefer visiting sites with ads over sites they have to pay directly for. I hate how intrusive and abusive many ads can be, block ads on many sites, pay to subscribe to some sites, and hope other models succeed someday, but have to acknowledge that ads do serve a purpose.
- artyomavanesov 7y ago
  I agree that ads serve their purpose. Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place. My point is indeed that people go to grocery stores to buy food, not to spend money. Doesn't mean cashiers aren't justified.
  - visarga 7y ago
    > Their proceeds allow websites to exist and motive entrepreneurs to create them in the first place. The desperation about monetising ads usually makes them crappy website creators. They would just fill pages with low quality articles propped up by SEO. I prefer the sources that don't earn money on advertising for quality of content.

guareber 7y ago

Everything Criteo says is just terrible. They're about as borderline legal as it gets. I'm 100% expecting them to get massive GDPR related fines in 2020.