6 ms·

Getting privacy advice from an adtech funded outlet sounds like reading democracy advice from the Chinese ruling party or vegetarianism advice from lions to be

Getting privacy advice from an adtech funded outlet sounds like reading democracy advice from the Chinese ruling party or vegetarianism advice from lions to be honest. It might be correct-and-incomplete but they just have no credibility on the topic.

gamblor956 1y ago
WaPo is dependent on subscription revenue, not ads. They limit the number of articles non subscribers can read. They're also owned by one of the richest men in the world...
- romanows 1y ago
  Maybe, but they they refused to offer an ad-free subscription tier last time I asked. NYT and Chicago Sun Times also refused.
- eviks 1y ago
  Of course it's dependent on ads, what are you talking about, nothing prevents showing ads to subscribers to the tune of 180 mil/year https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/washington-post-lost-100-million-last-year-amid-staff-shakeups-wsj-reports-wapo-journalism-media-jeff-bezos https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/washington-post-lost...
  - gamblor956 1y ago
    WaPo is dependent on subscription revenue, which is more than 2/3rd of their revenue. Advertising revenue is less than a 1/3rd of their revenue, and dropping fast. Ad revenue from more than 50 million visitors is less than subscription revenue from 2.5 million subscribers. If WaPo was dependent on ads, they would have taken steps to increase accessibility to articles, but they didn't and haven't. Instead, they're restricting more and more content to subscribers, because ultimately subscribers are the ones that keep the lights on.
    - eviks 1y ago
      In no world is a third of revenue a "small fraction", especially with such big losses, so you won't be able to argue out of this simple fact that it's dependent on ads. > and dropping fast, Just like the number of subscribers and subscription revenue?
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Many HN commenters work for "adtech funded outlets". Do they have any credibility on the issue of privacy.
- hungmung 1y ago
  Individually they might, but I wouldn't take advice from their employers.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  Is it true that, individually, Washington Post "tech" journalists might be credibie but their employers would not be credible.
- alkonaut 1y ago
  Depends on their stance on the issue but individuals don’t necessarily share the views of their employers. WaPo is by no means worst here. But their omission of Adblock in this article means they can’t be credible.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
    "But their omission of Adblock in this article means they can't be credible." But adblockers do not fully solve the problem that the article is focused on. Namely, the use, e.g., by Meta and Yandex, of websockets in closed source mobile apps to listen on a loopback address for requests by mobile browsers, e.g., for tracking pixels. There are approaches to prevent such tracking that do not necessarily require adblockers running in browsers. If the article mentioned Adblock but omitted other approaches, then does that mean the publisher is not credible.
    - account42 1y ago
      Ad blockers can and do also block connections that aren't strictly "ads" themselves.
      - 1y ago

gamblor956 1y ago

WaPo is dependent on subscription revenue, not ads. They limit the number of articles non subscribers can read. They're also owned by one of the richest men in the world...

romanows 1y ago
Maybe, but they they refused to offer an ad-free subscription tier last time I asked. NYT and Chicago Sun Times also refused.
eviks 1y ago
Of course it's dependent on ads, what are you talking about, nothing prevents showing ads to subscribers to the tune of 180 mil/year https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/washington-post-lost-100-million-last-year-amid-staff-shakeups-wsj-reports-wapo-journalism-media-jeff-bezos https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/washington-post-lost...
- gamblor956 1y ago
  WaPo is dependent on subscription revenue, which is more than 2/3rd of their revenue. Advertising revenue is less than a 1/3rd of their revenue, and dropping fast. Ad revenue from more than 50 million visitors is less than subscription revenue from 2.5 million subscribers. If WaPo was dependent on ads, they would have taken steps to increase accessibility to articles, but they didn't and haven't. Instead, they're restricting more and more content to subscribers, because ultimately subscribers are the ones that keep the lights on.
  - eviks 1y ago
    In no world is a third of revenue a "small fraction", especially with such big losses, so you won't be able to argue out of this simple fact that it's dependent on ads. > and dropping fast, Just like the number of subscribers and subscription revenue?

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

Many HN commenters work for "adtech funded outlets". Do they have any credibility on the issue of privacy.

hungmung 1y ago
Individually they might, but I wouldn't take advice from their employers.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Is it true that, individually, Washington Post "tech" journalists might be credibie but their employers would not be credible.
alkonaut 1y ago
Depends on their stance on the issue but individuals don’t necessarily share the views of their employers. WaPo is by no means worst here. But their omission of Adblock in this article means they can’t be credible.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  "But their omission of Adblock in this article means they can't be credible." But adblockers do not fully solve the problem that the article is focused on. Namely, the use, e.g., by Meta and Yandex, of websockets in closed source mobile apps to listen on a loopback address for requests by mobile browsers, e.g., for tracking pixels. There are approaches to prevent such tracking that do not necessarily require adblockers running in browsers. If the article mentioned Adblock but omitted other approaches, then does that mean the publisher is not credible.
  - account42 1y ago
    Ad blockers can and do also block connections that aren't strictly "ads" themselves.
    - 1y ago