3 ms·

Ads predate surveillance capitalism, so of course they can. Base the ad on the web page content, not on constantly spying on everyone.

emodendroket 4y ago
"In the analog world, many homes are secured with a four-digit passcode. Therefore, a four-digit passcode should be sufficient to secure any Web account." This is the form of your argument.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  No the argument is “therefore 4 digit passcode can also secure any web account” Which is true. It’s just not as secure, just like dumb ads wouldn’t be as profitable as todays’ ads. But no one is arguing they would be nearly as profitable. Or profitable at all. Only that they are possible. Maybe you get 5c where tug used to get $1. That’s fine! Take the 5c and just shut down the site if that isn’t enough. There will be new jobs in print advertising… And this IS the argument for by-the-letter GDPR interpretation of cookie wall laws, or proponents of Adblocking: we don’t think the problem is to somehow find a solution that respects privacy and at the same time doesn’t torpedo the whole ad-based economy. I just want ads not to spy on me and my regulators to do their job, even if 75% of “ad funded” content disappears tomorrow.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    I don’t find the vision very inspiring.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      I don't put your desire for money ahead of everyone else's right to privacy. Not to mention the part where optimizing content for maximum ad impressions has led to the rise of extremist content and political infighting.
      - emodendroket 4y ago
        What if I like using ad-supported services and am not very excited about a barren Internet with little content? You are proposing to impose your will on everyone else so accusing anyone who doesn't particularly like it of wanton greed seems like an unfair attack.
        GeekyBear 4y ago
        > What if I like using ad-supported services Again, ads are entirely possible without constantly spying on everyone, they are just less profitable, which is a good tradeoff for those who are not excessively greedy. If you want to be allowed to spy on someone, all you have to do is get their informed consent.
        emodendroket 4y ago
        Ads barely even sustain many ad-supported businesses now.
        alkonaut 4y ago
        Previous commenter: Yes, I am completely aware that many would hate an internet without 80% of the content. And I'm aware that some of those might be making a conscious transaction when they "sell" their information/integrity/whatever, in exchange for the service or information (My guess is a tiny majority - but I have nothing to back up that guess with). So my argument is basically this 1) I don't think many understand what's being exchanged in the transaction. And I think such transactions shouldn't be allowed. So I don't think they must necessarily be "banned" outright, but they should be made very clear. And that's what the GDPR is trying to do. Not make anyone make transactions where they aren't aware what they are giving away. 2) If everyone is "aware enough" of what they are giving away, then I don't think enough people would accept it. So simply put, there is the "barren internet" or the internet that people like but for the most part because they aren't aware of what's going on. Now, Not only is it of course "my will imposed on others" (As is any legal/political argument or suggestion). But not only that, it's also a case of me arguing "people aren't clever enough to take care of their own integrity". And I stand firmly by that one as well.

emodendroket 4y ago

"In the analog world, many homes are secured with a four-digit passcode. Therefore, a four-digit passcode should be sufficient to secure any Web account." This is the form of your argument.

alkonaut 4y ago
No the argument is “therefore 4 digit passcode can also secure any web account” Which is true. It’s just not as secure, just like dumb ads wouldn’t be as profitable as todays’ ads. But no one is arguing they would be nearly as profitable. Or profitable at all. Only that they are possible. Maybe you get 5c where tug used to get $1. That’s fine! Take the 5c and just shut down the site if that isn’t enough. There will be new jobs in print advertising… And this IS the argument for by-the-letter GDPR interpretation of cookie wall laws, or proponents of Adblocking: we don’t think the problem is to somehow find a solution that respects privacy and at the same time doesn’t torpedo the whole ad-based economy. I just want ads not to spy on me and my regulators to do their job, even if 75% of “ad funded” content disappears tomorrow.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  I don’t find the vision very inspiring.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    I don't put your desire for money ahead of everyone else's right to privacy. Not to mention the part where optimizing content for maximum ad impressions has led to the rise of extremist content and political infighting.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      What if I like using ad-supported services and am not very excited about a barren Internet with little content? You are proposing to impose your will on everyone else so accusing anyone who doesn't particularly like it of wanton greed seems like an unfair attack.
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        > What if I like using ad-supported services Again, ads are entirely possible without constantly spying on everyone, they are just less profitable, which is a good tradeoff for those who are not excessively greedy. If you want to be allowed to spy on someone, all you have to do is get their informed consent.
        emodendroket 4y ago
        Ads barely even sustain many ad-supported businesses now.
      - alkonaut 4y ago
        Previous commenter: Yes, I am completely aware that many would hate an internet without 80% of the content. And I'm aware that some of those might be making a conscious transaction when they "sell" their information/integrity/whatever, in exchange for the service or information (My guess is a tiny majority - but I have nothing to back up that guess with). So my argument is basically this 1) I don't think many understand what's being exchanged in the transaction. And I think such transactions shouldn't be allowed. So I don't think they must necessarily be "banned" outright, but they should be made very clear. And that's what the GDPR is trying to do. Not make anyone make transactions where they aren't aware what they are giving away. 2) If everyone is "aware enough" of what they are giving away, then I don't think enough people would accept it. So simply put, there is the "barren internet" or the internet that people like but for the most part because they aren't aware of what's going on. Now, Not only is it of course "my will imposed on others" (As is any legal/political argument or suggestion). But not only that, it's also a case of me arguing "people aren't clever enough to take care of their own integrity". And I stand firmly by that one as well.