3 ms·
They don't have to have banners, they only have to have them if they do user-hostile tracking. Unfortunately most sites have scummy business models and this ju
by GekkePrutser 4y ago
They don't have to have banners, they only have to have them if they do user-hostile tracking.
Unfortunately most sites have scummy business models and this just exposes them.
It opened a market for untargeted ads again (based on the general interest of site visitors) which would never have happened if it was left to the market.
Google is actively working against these untargeted ads because targeting is their #1 market advantage. Nobody has a bigger tracking network than them.
But especially in Europe other players are taking off with them now.
- scarface74 4y agoSo how many users have said “okay I’m not going to use this website because I know how they use my data based on the cookie banner?” How many of these companies in Europe have even a fifth of Google’s ad revenue?
- gerash 4y agoNone-sense! If you have to blame 99% of the website (clothing, media, restaurants, ...) as being malicious in order to defend a piece of legislation then you're obviously wrong. I don't care about the intentions of the law. I care about the effects. No one is trying to update/fix the law within a feedback loop. It's a one time process.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoYou mean all websites that incorporate Google and Facebook trackers allowing those companies to know everything we buy, every piece of text we read, who we talk to, etc ... I don't find it obviously wrong to have a problem with this.