3 ms·

The thing I have with collecting data, even if depersonalized, is that it's practically taken without consent. I'm completely fine, for example, with giving det

The thing I have with collecting data, even if depersonalized, is that it's practically taken without consent. I'm completely fine, for example, with giving detailed, but anonymous usage statistics to Mozilla, because they nicely asked me if they may do that, to improve Firefox. I'm not okay with people just "taking" those statistics from me. Tracking should be opt-in, not opt-out. I shouldn't have to tell you to stop tracking me, you should need to get my consent to start tracking me. >it's worth noting that advertising is what pays for all the free content you enjoy on the internet Which is why I whitelist trustworthy domains I frequent in Adblock Plus. Again, opt-in. Also, advertisement need not necessarily be targeted. You can run generalized ads just as well. Sure, it might not be as profitable, but if the trade-off for more profit is less privacy, then I'm afraid I'll give priority to the latter.

jbooth 15y ago
I can understand your point, although I have a small beef with the consent point (you're visiting the website on your own consent, after all). More importantly though, you're basically pitting your privacy against someone else's money. Of course you're going to rank your privacy higher. What if it was your privacy vs less content on the internet because more sites go out of business?
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Gosh I don't know. Maybe sleazy sites getting pushed to the margins would have to develop non-sleazy business models or die trying. In either case, it's a win for the Internet.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Sleazy sites like the new york times? Come up with a list of your favorite sites and I bet, aside from Ycombinator, all of them sell ads on the exchanges. And the only reason ycombinator doesn't have ads is because it is an ad. If you visit a website, I don't see how it's such a violation of your rights for them to take a note of your visit.
DLarsen 15y ago
Targeted advertising makes ad delivery efficient. If you somehow turned off all targeted ads today, the advertisers are getting less bang for their buck. The price they would be willing to pay sites will drop dramatically. How do you compensate for that lost revenue? More ads? "Donate with PayPal" buttons? Although there are legitimate concerns about everyone tracking everyone, the Internet is less annoying overall as a result of the advertising efficiency of targeted advertising.

jbooth 15y ago

I can understand your point, although I have a small beef with the consent point (you're visiting the website on your own consent, after all). More importantly though, you're basically pitting your privacy against someone else's money. Of course you're going to rank your privacy higher. What if it was your privacy vs less content on the internet because more sites go out of business?

alexqgb 15y ago
Gosh I don't know. Maybe sleazy sites getting pushed to the margins would have to develop non-sleazy business models or die trying. In either case, it's a win for the Internet.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Sleazy sites like the new york times? Come up with a list of your favorite sites and I bet, aside from Ycombinator, all of them sell ads on the exchanges. And the only reason ycombinator doesn't have ads is because it is an ad. If you visit a website, I don't see how it's such a violation of your rights for them to take a note of your visit.

DLarsen 15y ago

Targeted advertising makes ad delivery efficient. If you somehow turned off all targeted ads today, the advertisers are getting less bang for their buck. The price they would be willing to pay sites will drop dramatically. How do you compensate for that lost revenue? More ads? "Donate with PayPal" buttons? Although there are legitimate concerns about everyone tracking everyone, the Internet is less annoying overall as a result of the advertising efficiency of targeted advertising.