5 ms·
> That’s why newspapers had classified ads, I don't recall in the past a company needing my identity required or be tracked just because I bought a newspaper.
by dghughes 2y ago
> That’s why newspapers had classified ads,
I don't recall in the past a company needing my identity required or be tracked just because I bought a newspaper. I pay the $1 for the newspaper and no more interaction or relationship after that.
Ads are OK but why do all the ad companies need to track me and know my movements and just to show me an ad? It's basically malware, stalking. Ads are zero advantage to me the consumer for what I lose in privacy.
- fragmede 2y ago[flagged]
- WickyNilliams 2y ago> What am I losing..? An ever increasing amount of privacy. The ad industry will never be satisfied with the amount of data they collect now. They will always want more. This insatiable appetite for tracking and data represents a slow erosion of our privacy. Building unimaginable surveillance machinery for what? So that I might buy something online once every few years? It's casting an extremely large net to catch extremely small fries. The means do not justify the ends. I think relevant, contextual ads are the best alternative. I'm more likely to eg buy something related to what I'm reading than I am to buy a mattress advertised to me across a million websites (a mattress that I've probably already bought I should add!). That doesn't require intense tracking and surveillance across the web. It just requires understanding the context in which the ads are placed. And it's essentially how marketing worked prior to digital advertising
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago> If I'm trying to sell men's shampoo I wouldn't want to waste money putting ads for it in a women's magazine. Maybe women want to groom their men really good? Including hairs?