5 ms·

I think the users have brought it on themselves. Almost everyone wants free content, more, more of it! Just say: “You know what? I’m not gonna watch these cat v

by f6v 5y ago

I think the users have brought it on themselves. Almost everyone wants free content, more, more of it! Just say: “You know what? I’m not gonna watch these cat videos on YouTube cause there’s an outrageous number of ads!” Or (and I’m going to sound crazy) we could skip scrolling Instagram and just read a book or take a walk when we need to unwind. Google search is harder to escape, of course.

jdofaz 5y ago
TV and radio were successful with ads for a long time without needing to build a profile on every person in the audience
- wccrawford 5y ago
  I think this is key. Ads can be targeted without knowing anything about the user other than that they're viewing the content on that page. Sure, not as finely-tuned, but that's not the user's problem.
tshaddox 5y ago
I find it hard to blame the users when (according to this article) as soon as they’re given a modicum of control, they clearly reveal their preference for not being tracked.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Nobody can be blamed for wanting free content, who doesn't? The fact most sites are free of charge does not mean the advertising industry should be allowed to surveil everyone and monetize their private information. If sites can't aford to offer content for free, they should charge money for it.
toss1 5y ago
I'd say it is more the blame on the industry's failure to deliver a usable micropayments system. I'd be happy to pay a few pennies or dimes for every article I open to skim or read. But I cannot and will not pay the 2-3 figure subscriptions demanded by every publisher. There is a range of choice, all too high to commit to one, so the only one that gets my money is the Guardian, with a donate-what-you can model. The rest I put up with generally avoiding them, and reading only a few per month before the paywall goes up. If micropayments don't work, I'd also happily pay a single subscription in the $hundreds/year for access to around a dozen of the publications, but no one offers that to my knowledge (if anyone knows of such a service, please post!) But to blame the users when they clearly state their preferences at the first opportunity, and the industry has failed for decades to provide such an opportunity.. nope.
mekkkkkk 5y ago
You could use the same defense for drug dealers. "Why don't you just read a book instead of smoking crack?"
srswtf123 5y ago
> Google search is harder to escape, of course. Try Duckduckgo.com?

by f6v 5y ago

jdofaz 5y ago

TV and radio were successful with ads for a long time without needing to build a profile on every person in the audience

wccrawford 5y ago
I think this is key. Ads can be targeted without knowing anything about the user other than that they're viewing the content on that page. Sure, not as finely-tuned, but that's not the user's problem.

tshaddox 5y ago

I find it hard to blame the users when (according to this article) as soon as they’re given a modicum of control, they clearly reveal their preference for not being tracked.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Nobody can be blamed for wanting free content, who doesn't? The fact most sites are free of charge does not mean the advertising industry should be allowed to surveil everyone and monetize their private information. If sites can't aford to offer content for free, they should charge money for it.

toss1 5y ago

I'd say it is more the blame on the industry's failure to deliver a usable micropayments system. I'd be happy to pay a few pennies or dimes for every article I open to skim or read. But I cannot and will not pay the 2-3 figure subscriptions demanded by every publisher. There is a range of choice, all too high to commit to one, so the only one that gets my money is the Guardian, with a donate-what-you can model. The rest I put up with generally avoiding them, and reading only a few per month before the paywall goes up. If micropayments don't work, I'd also happily pay a single subscription in the $hundreds/year for access to around a dozen of the publications, but no one offers that to my knowledge (if anyone knows of such a service, please post!) But to blame the users when they clearly state their preferences at the first opportunity, and the industry has failed for decades to provide such an opportunity.. nope.

mekkkkkk 5y ago

You could use the same defense for drug dealers. "Why don't you just read a book instead of smoking crack?"

srswtf123 5y ago

> Google search is harder to escape, of course. Try Duckduckgo.com?