3 ms·
That's not the alternative. The alternative is the death of most sites other than walled gardens like Meta and Amazon that own their own advertising end-to-end.
by marcinzm 2y ago
That's not the alternative. The alternative is the death of most sites other than walled gardens like Meta and Amazon that own their own advertising end-to-end. Do you want the internet to be even more Meta controlled?
- staplers 2y agoThe internet and humanity would exist fine without advertisers. History has proven this to be true.
- marcinzm 2y agoHistory doesn't move backward and the internet users of the mid 90s are not the internet users of now. Give the vast majority of internet users a choice between the internet of mid 90s (after that ads powered it all) and having nothing but large tech owned sites to browse I think you're delusional if you think they'd actually pick the former.
- staplers 2y agoafter that ads powered it all You must be browsing too many social media and news sites.
- marcinzm 2y agoOf the top 100 sites in the US the only ones I see that don't have ads are corporate (ie: Microsoft, Capital One, etc.) and Wikipedia. Arguably the corporate ones are nothing but an ads for that brand. Even Home Depot has ads on its site. I don't think a 1% rate of no ads is selling your point. Even most of the smaller sites have Google ads on them in massive quantities.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoWho is using tracking? Its not mom and pop websites. Its big corporations. I could care less if they lost money. The internet would be a healthier place without corporations trying to shift public discourse in their favor.
- marcinzm 2y agoThose mom and pop sites are often filled with trackers and ads. Assuming they haven't just moved to using a third party service that does it for them. It's like saying the person shooting you isn't at fault but only the gun they shoot you with.