4 ms·

>This tracking is not benefiting us. Well unless you don't consider free access to video streaming (YouTube) or free access to news a benefit. My honest opini

>This tracking is not benefiting us. Well unless you don't consider free access to video streaming (YouTube) or free access to news a benefit. My honest opinion on all this has always been that the majority of people, if properly explained to that 'tracking' is never even viewed by a human, and even if it was, your identified as user 563758, would consider this a fair trade. People largely think you can remove the tracking and access all the same content for free. But when the ads pay 90% less, it becomes much more difficult for the free content to survive.

jlkuester7 4y ago
This is a fair point. If you don't want to be intrusively tracked, you should not expect "free" services. However, IMHO the answer here is to find a different model for funding online software/services. Letting advertising firms run the internet does not really seem to be taking software in a user/consumer-friendly direction.
- naasking 4y ago
  Plenty of services were free prior to commercialization of the web because they generated nom-monetary value (community, knowledge, etc.). Plenty of creators and artists also make money directly via donations (Patreon, etc.). I'm not sure we need the existing ad model for either free content or to make money on the internet.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  "Ads only work if they have intrusive tracking" is presented by you and others as fact. It's not.
Retric 4y ago
Advertising does not require tracking. Remember over the air television and all it’s free news broadcasts.
- nalaz 4y ago
  Advertising with tracking barely covers costs, imagine without it.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Competitive markets reach equilibrium. With or without tracking it’s going to barely cover costs because otherwise more people enter the market due to minimal barriers to entry.
    - wavefunction 4y ago
      Sometimes equilibrium is 0.
      - Retric 4y ago
        We had ad supported websites well before tracking, so that seems like a non sequitur.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    It think that means that advertising is not going to save content, and people will have to think of alternative revenue streams, because revenue from advertising is only going to go down.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Advertising without tracking would arguably cost less. Even if it makes less, it's not clear that the margin would be worse or non-viable.
- modeless 4y ago
  Oh, I remember. They sucked! Both the ads and the news they funded.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Feel free to link to all these advertising supported websites better than Seinfeld. I could use a good laugh. News was hit or miss. They did a lot of serious investigative reporting, but newspapers where simply a better medium for personalized in depth coverage.
abofh 4y ago
If you think a human never sees your information, you're sadly ill informed, I know 563758 lives in ottowa, the porn he searches for and that he's a vegan who is into electronic music from the 70s. These profiles are incredibly detailed, and available to every average advertiser. These banners start with "your privacy is important to us", but they omit the next part of the phrase, but we'd like you to allow our partners to invade it. The banners are there because the process is so abusive they need your consent to make 90% more.
- ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
  >The banners are there because the process is so abusive they need your consent to make 90% more. The banners are there because if you take away 90% of their revenue, they cease to exist. Imagine your salary reduced by 90% tomorrow unless you beg your boss daily for your full pay. >If you think a human never sees your information, you're sadly ill informed Are you under the impression ads are manually targeted? The only time someone at Google has ever laid eyes on your profile would be if somehow your profile bugged out and caused something to crash. And even if they did look at a single user's data, it would be meaningless without having the name attached. And even if the name was attached, it'd still be meaningless, because there's 300 million people in the US alone. You have to strawman the absolutely perfect situation for it to even remotely matter.
  - vinyl7 4y ago
    > The banners are there because if you take away 90% of their revenue, they cease to exist. I accept these conditions
    - ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
      You went to the website for some purpose no? So you'd rather not have gone to the website at all? So why did you attempt to visit the website in the first place? It's just so irresponsible to take extremes like this, ignoring the amount of information and entertainment available on the internet.
belorn 4y ago
Let us test that theory. Imagine that I went to a hospital and asked to get a copy of all the patients records. The contract I sign will say that no record should ever be viewed by a human, and if any human did read a record, patients would be identified by patient ID like 563758. In return patients would get services worth ~50 cent. How many patients would consider this a fair trade? In addition, drugs would get targeted advertisement, and the funds for advertisements would be raised through the profits of said drugs (ie, patients would be paying for it, by an average of $1 more per patient). Still, patients would get free services that costs the advertisement network ~50 cent per patient.

jlkuester7 4y ago

This is a fair point. If you don't want to be intrusively tracked, you should not expect "free" services. However, IMHO the answer here is to find a different model for funding online software/services. Letting advertising firms run the internet does not really seem to be taking software in a user/consumer-friendly direction.

naasking 4y ago
Plenty of services were free prior to commercialization of the web because they generated nom-monetary value (community, knowledge, etc.). Plenty of creators and artists also make money directly via donations (Patreon, etc.). I'm not sure we need the existing ad model for either free content or to make money on the internet.
dmitriid 4y ago
"Ads only work if they have intrusive tracking" is presented by you and others as fact. It's not.

Retric 4y ago

Advertising does not require tracking. Remember over the air television and all it’s free news broadcasts.

nalaz 4y ago
Advertising with tracking barely covers costs, imagine without it.
- Retric 4y ago
  Competitive markets reach equilibrium. With or without tracking it’s going to barely cover costs because otherwise more people enter the market due to minimal barriers to entry.
  - wavefunction 4y ago
    Sometimes equilibrium is 0.
    - Retric 4y ago
      We had ad supported websites well before tracking, so that seems like a non sequitur.
- happymellon 4y ago
  It think that means that advertising is not going to save content, and people will have to think of alternative revenue streams, because revenue from advertising is only going to go down.
- naasking 4y ago
  Advertising without tracking would arguably cost less. Even if it makes less, it's not clear that the margin would be worse or non-viable.
modeless 4y ago
Oh, I remember. They sucked! Both the ads and the news they funded.
- Retric 4y ago
  Feel free to link to all these advertising supported websites better than Seinfeld. I could use a good laugh. News was hit or miss. They did a lot of serious investigative reporting, but newspapers where simply a better medium for personalized in depth coverage.

abofh 4y ago

If you think a human never sees your information, you're sadly ill informed, I know 563758 lives in ottowa, the porn he searches for and that he's a vegan who is into electronic music from the 70s. These profiles are incredibly detailed, and available to every average advertiser. These banners start with "your privacy is important to us", but they omit the next part of the phrase, but we'd like you to allow our partners to invade it. The banners are there because the process is so abusive they need your consent to make 90% more.

ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
>The banners are there because the process is so abusive they need your consent to make 90% more. The banners are there because if you take away 90% of their revenue, they cease to exist. Imagine your salary reduced by 90% tomorrow unless you beg your boss daily for your full pay. >If you think a human never sees your information, you're sadly ill informed Are you under the impression ads are manually targeted? The only time someone at Google has ever laid eyes on your profile would be if somehow your profile bugged out and caused something to crash. And even if they did look at a single user's data, it would be meaningless without having the name attached. And even if the name was attached, it'd still be meaningless, because there's 300 million people in the US alone. You have to strawman the absolutely perfect situation for it to even remotely matter.
- vinyl7 4y ago
  > The banners are there because if you take away 90% of their revenue, they cease to exist. I accept these conditions
  - ApolloFortyNine 4y ago
    You went to the website for some purpose no? So you'd rather not have gone to the website at all? So why did you attempt to visit the website in the first place? It's just so irresponsible to take extremes like this, ignoring the amount of information and entertainment available on the internet.

belorn 4y ago

Let us test that theory. Imagine that I went to a hospital and asked to get a copy of all the patients records. The contract I sign will say that no record should ever be viewed by a human, and if any human did read a record, patients would be identified by patient ID like 563758. In return patients would get services worth ~50 cent. How many patients would consider this a fair trade? In addition, drugs would get targeted advertisement, and the funds for advertisements would be raised through the profits of said drugs (ie, patients would be paying for it, by an average of $1 more per patient). Still, patients would get free services that costs the advertisement network ~50 cent per patient.