9 ms·

Transparency. People are overwhelmingly unaware of the volume and types of data that is collected on them. And at this point the free market can’t resolve this

Transparency. People are overwhelmingly unaware of the volume and types of data that is collected on them. And at this point the free market can’t resolve this. The spyware model has absolutely ruined the internet economy. There is no way to compete against a spyware company with a paid product.

endisneigh 5y ago
If people are choosing "spyware" over a "paid" product, perhaps they just don't care about data collection that much. Isn't that the logical conclusion? Objectively ads have added more money into the internet economy than ever before. Curious where you're getting your numbers. 20 years ago "YouTuber" wasn't even a profession. The idea some rando with a microphone and a camera could make millions was unheard of. It's only possible with ads.
- Rygian 5y ago
  People are rarely, if ever, given that choice. Because it spells out the nature of the non-paying option as spyware.
- 9dev 5y ago
  People don't care about a lot of things. Mainly because they don't understand them, or don't know about them: climate change, cancerous substances, plastic waste, homeless people, illegal whaling, domestic cats killing singing birds, sewing winter clothing or properly managing their savings. That is why we have subject matter experts providing guidance for people in a world too complex to grasp or even care about everything they have to deal with. People _shouldn't have to care_, as long as they can trust on those experts to do the right things. We're the experts. Advertising companies are ruining the internet for everyone, some people are just too unaware to realise it.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    > Advertising companies are ruining the internet for everyone, some people are just too unaware to realise it. Sounds like projection. Though I'd agree that most internet users don't like ads, what's true is that most internet users don't like paying for things. Using YouTube as an example, the most popular site on the internet, the vast majority of people do not pay for YouTube premium even though it's available. At the end of the day no one is stopping you from going back to circa-2000s internet, using IRC, going on plain text websites, using BBS, etc.
    - 9dev 5y ago
      I think the point is that megacorps' business structure is way too complex for anyone to actually understand. Why is Gmail free? It makes money for Google, that part is clear, but I have no idea how exactly. I'm not even sure they can measure it exactly. Those companies have transformed the internet, and its users, by offering services for free, in exchange for user data. We have raised an entire generation (two, maybe?) of people taking that model for granted, nicely illustrated by completely ad-dependent YouTube superstars. Of course, we cannot simply ban all advertising and start charging for everything. But I'm of the firm opinion that, in order to go forward, we have to leave this business model behind, as humanity. The only way to achieve this is by making it unattractive via legislation.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        > Of course, we cannot simply ban all advertising and start charging for everything. But I'm of the firm opinion that, in order to go forward, we have to leave this business model behind, as humanity. The only way to achieve this is by making it unattractive via legislation. What exactly are you proposing? Anyone who wants to pay for email can do so already. It's very trivial to not use any of Google's services or be tracked. Install uBlock, and don't go to any Google or subsidiary service. Done. What exactly is the issue?
        9dev 5y ago
        The issue isn't that I'm personally inconvenienced, this is not about me. It's that the internet is dominated by ad-based companies, and that is not a good thing? I propose that we try to move humanity past this way of generating revenue, because it's wasting productivity and resources, encouraging shady behaviour, and leads to less freedom overall. We have social networks manipulating users into staying on the platforms as long as possible, scrolling down infinite feeds, to expose them to as much advertising as possible, thus wasting productivity. We have big players such as the IAB and its members tracking and spying on users to obtain more data to sell, as an alternative revenue stream to charging for their services. We have quality journalism disappear in favour of whatever generates the most clicks, in order to expose more readers to advertisements. YouTube stars pushing hidden ads on children. Advertisers crossing ever more boundaries of privacy, by aggregating data from thousands of companies, with basically no oversight by anyone. That is the issue. I think we should do something against that, and I think "something" may be to nudge the market into another direction, from ad-based to transaction-based revenue sources.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Suppose there are two products on the market. One, a children’s toy that sells for $9.99. The other a very similar children’s toy that uses lead paint, instead of a safer paint, but is otherwise very similar. It is not clearly labeled as having lead paint. The lead paint toy sells for $4.99. If people buy the cheaper toy, does that mean people are “choosing” lead paint over the more expensive toy? No! It means people are unaware of the lead paint, or are unaware of the dangers of lead to children.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    You're comparing seeing ads with children consuming lead paint? Lead paint has very obvious, bodily harm to children. Do ads harm children? Perhaps, but even if they did, there's no cost to visit a free-site without ads, or pay for a site without ads.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      > You're comparing seeing ads with children consuming lead paint? No, I’m not. You can tell, because I never made a comparison between the two. What I did was make a hypothetical that was more extreme, with an analogy of the underlying reasoning, to make my objections to that reasoning more apparent. But, that’s absolutely not a comparison, so no.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > You're comparing seeing ads with children consuming lead paint? No, nobody said it's the same thing. It is an example of misleading business practices.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  You're conflating ads with spyware. Ads have existed as long as commerce has existed. Ads don't need spyware.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    How do you propose you track ad spend without "spyware"? Or should the people spending money on ads just "trust" that their ads are actually being displayed to the types of people they want to show them to?
    - parkingrift 5y ago
      The same way ads work in every other industry. Have you ever been to Times Square?
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        You mean the same ad industry that was easily supplanted by internet ads? So you want a regression, why exactly? If you don’t want to be tracked stop using sites that track you and install ad block.
        Nextgrid 5y ago
        Is it a regression? I'd argue an ad in Times Square (or a reputable print newspaper) is a major upgrade from the cesspool that is internet advertising. Seeing an ad there signals to me that the brand has enough money to clear the huge barrier to entry (thus is unlikely to be a fly-by-night scam) and doesn't mind being seen by everyone. This gives me more confidence as a consumer to purchase their product. > If you don’t want to be tracked stop using sites that track you Can you even tell that before being tracked? The GDPR attempts to make tracking opt-in so that you have a way to consider the downsides before agreeing. There's technically no problem with targeted ads and data collection as long as users are given a clear description of what data they're sharing and how it will be processed. > install ad block The same people behind all this illicit data collection would rather not have you do that.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > If people are choosing "spyware" over a "paid" product, perhaps they just don't care about data collection that much. Isn't that the logical conclusion? I think the idea that people would be able to even make this decision themselves is too optimistic. > Objectively ads have added more money into the internet economy than ever before Is that good though? Is there some actual value being created by this or is it simply that ad money has been flowing out of other places like print and TV, and into online advertising?

endisneigh 5y ago

If people are choosing "spyware" over a "paid" product, perhaps they just don't care about data collection that much. Isn't that the logical conclusion? Objectively ads have added more money into the internet economy than ever before. Curious where you're getting your numbers. 20 years ago "YouTuber" wasn't even a profession. The idea some rando with a microphone and a camera could make millions was unheard of. It's only possible with ads.

Rygian 5y ago
People are rarely, if ever, given that choice. Because it spells out the nature of the non-paying option as spyware.
9dev 5y ago
People don't care about a lot of things. Mainly because they don't understand them, or don't know about them: climate change, cancerous substances, plastic waste, homeless people, illegal whaling, domestic cats killing singing birds, sewing winter clothing or properly managing their savings. That is why we have subject matter experts providing guidance for people in a world too complex to grasp or even care about everything they have to deal with. People _shouldn't have to care_, as long as they can trust on those experts to do the right things. We're the experts. Advertising companies are ruining the internet for everyone, some people are just too unaware to realise it.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > Advertising companies are ruining the internet for everyone, some people are just too unaware to realise it. Sounds like projection. Though I'd agree that most internet users don't like ads, what's true is that most internet users don't like paying for things. Using YouTube as an example, the most popular site on the internet, the vast majority of people do not pay for YouTube premium even though it's available. At the end of the day no one is stopping you from going back to circa-2000s internet, using IRC, going on plain text websites, using BBS, etc.
  - 9dev 5y ago
    I think the point is that megacorps' business structure is way too complex for anyone to actually understand. Why is Gmail free? It makes money for Google, that part is clear, but I have no idea how exactly. I'm not even sure they can measure it exactly. Those companies have transformed the internet, and its users, by offering services for free, in exchange for user data. We have raised an entire generation (two, maybe?) of people taking that model for granted, nicely illustrated by completely ad-dependent YouTube superstars. Of course, we cannot simply ban all advertising and start charging for everything. But I'm of the firm opinion that, in order to go forward, we have to leave this business model behind, as humanity. The only way to achieve this is by making it unattractive via legislation.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      > Of course, we cannot simply ban all advertising and start charging for everything. But I'm of the firm opinion that, in order to go forward, we have to leave this business model behind, as humanity. The only way to achieve this is by making it unattractive via legislation. What exactly are you proposing? Anyone who wants to pay for email can do so already. It's very trivial to not use any of Google's services or be tracked. Install uBlock, and don't go to any Google or subsidiary service. Done. What exactly is the issue?
      - 9dev 5y ago
        The issue isn't that I'm personally inconvenienced, this is not about me. It's that the internet is dominated by ad-based companies, and that is not a good thing? I propose that we try to move humanity past this way of generating revenue, because it's wasting productivity and resources, encouraging shady behaviour, and leads to less freedom overall. We have social networks manipulating users into staying on the platforms as long as possible, scrolling down infinite feeds, to expose them to as much advertising as possible, thus wasting productivity. We have big players such as the IAB and its members tracking and spying on users to obtain more data to sell, as an alternative revenue stream to charging for their services. We have quality journalism disappear in favour of whatever generates the most clicks, in order to expose more readers to advertisements. YouTube stars pushing hidden ads on children. Advertisers crossing ever more boundaries of privacy, by aggregating data from thousands of companies, with basically no oversight by anyone. That is the issue. I think we should do something against that, and I think "something" may be to nudge the market into another direction, from ad-based to transaction-based revenue sources.
ncallaway 5y ago
Suppose there are two products on the market. One, a children’s toy that sells for $9.99. The other a very similar children’s toy that uses lead paint, instead of a safer paint, but is otherwise very similar. It is not clearly labeled as having lead paint. The lead paint toy sells for $4.99. If people buy the cheaper toy, does that mean people are “choosing” lead paint over the more expensive toy? No! It means people are unaware of the lead paint, or are unaware of the dangers of lead to children.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  You're comparing seeing ads with children consuming lead paint? Lead paint has very obvious, bodily harm to children. Do ads harm children? Perhaps, but even if they did, there's no cost to visit a free-site without ads, or pay for a site without ads.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > You're comparing seeing ads with children consuming lead paint? No, I’m not. You can tell, because I never made a comparison between the two. What I did was make a hypothetical that was more extreme, with an analogy of the underlying reasoning, to make my objections to that reasoning more apparent. But, that’s absolutely not a comparison, so no.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > You're comparing seeing ads with children consuming lead paint? No, nobody said it's the same thing. It is an example of misleading business practices.
parkingrift 5y ago
You're conflating ads with spyware. Ads have existed as long as commerce has existed. Ads don't need spyware.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  How do you propose you track ad spend without "spyware"? Or should the people spending money on ads just "trust" that their ads are actually being displayed to the types of people they want to show them to?
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    The same way ads work in every other industry. Have you ever been to Times Square?
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      You mean the same ad industry that was easily supplanted by internet ads? So you want a regression, why exactly? If you don’t want to be tracked stop using sites that track you and install ad block.
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        Is it a regression? I'd argue an ad in Times Square (or a reputable print newspaper) is a major upgrade from the cesspool that is internet advertising. Seeing an ad there signals to me that the brand has enough money to clear the huge barrier to entry (thus is unlikely to be a fly-by-night scam) and doesn't mind being seen by everyone. This gives me more confidence as a consumer to purchase their product. > If you don’t want to be tracked stop using sites that track you Can you even tell that before being tracked? The GDPR attempts to make tracking opt-in so that you have a way to consider the downsides before agreeing. There's technically no problem with targeted ads and data collection as long as users are given a clear description of what data they're sharing and how it will be processed. > install ad block The same people behind all this illicit data collection would rather not have you do that.
alkonaut 5y ago
> If people are choosing "spyware" over a "paid" product, perhaps they just don't care about data collection that much. Isn't that the logical conclusion? I think the idea that people would be able to even make this decision themselves is too optimistic. > Objectively ads have added more money into the internet economy than ever before Is that good though? Is there some actual value being created by this or is it simply that ad money has been flowing out of other places like print and TV, and into online advertising?