2 ms·

I think the displeasure you feel should be directed towards website developers. As far as I know the "no surveillance" option is there: the person who wrote the

I think the displeasure you feel should be directed towards website developers. As far as I know the "no surveillance" option is there: the person who wrote the website can choose whether to inject a tracking program to the code or not. People are misdirecting their hatred towards ad-tracking towards ad developers when in reality the people who decide to use ad trackers in their websites should be asked questions. I understand some giant sites will always come with "we will track you" (Facebook is the easiest example) but even those Facebook spy buttons appear on websites because the developer of the site agreed to it and embedded it there.

sophacles 5y ago
That's pure bs. I think I'll blame the giant, powerful monopolists (either aspiring or actual). They have been using their clout to kill off organic discovery and trying to ensure stuff that isn't part of the surveillance system gets buried. This isn't a "guns don't kill people; people kill people situation", this is a "I don't like money but I want to eat, so I'll use money" situation - website developers can participate in the surveillance state or starve. That's not a practical choice.