3 ms·
It's pretty simple. The journalist/editors want to write an article about privacy and web tracking. The business people want ads on the website to keep the ligh
by sparrc 4y ago
It's pretty simple. The journalist/editors want to write an article about privacy and web tracking. The business people want ads on the website to keep the lights on.
And to be fair to the business people, it's not like they have much choice. There are no major privacy-focused ad networks and they need a source of revenue. What do you expect them to do?
- bombcar 4y agoSometimes the only moral act is to die. "Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil." At some point a company may have to make a decision that results in their death if they want to continue to act morally. But much, much more often they simply modify their morals slightly and continue on. We humans are great at that.
- lolinder 4y agoWhat good would dying do in this case? There will be no shortage of other publications that will fill in the gap and happily embrace invasive advertising. If an organization keeps the lights on with ad revenue and teaches its readers to protect themselves from trackers, they've done more good than if they never existed at all.
- shortformblog 4y agoDon’t aim your weapons at the publishers, who are generally working as morally as they can within the parameters they’ve been given. Aim them at the ad technology firms that set the ground rules for the industry decades ago. The publishers are generally not the ones who let it degrade like this—the ad industry, which set the expectations for advertisers and marketers, did.