4 ms·
With that statement, you're also saying "To hell with YouTube, Facebook, WordPress.com and every other site that wouldn't survive without money."
by melvinram 14y ago
With that statement, you're also saying "To hell with YouTube, Facebook, WordPress.com and every other site that wouldn't survive without money."
- ryanhuff 14y agoHow does blocking third party Javascript prevent the sites that you mention from monetizing?
- amastilovic 14y agoIt lowers their income by forcing them to succumb to non-targeted advertising which is less effective and brings less money. I'd love to see your ideas of a free and secure web without marketing money flowing into content provider websites.
- ihsw 14y agoThey have enough varied content to effectively provide re-targeted ads.
- ryanhuff 14y agoStriving to maximize revenue is great. However, I don't see this particular issue as black and white as you present it. This will certainly make some websites less profitable, but I doubt that it would bring an end to the free web. In fact, aren't there are other ways to do retargeting? Given Google's relationship with Mozilla, if this move would negatively impact Google, i would be very surprised to see it happen.
- amastilovic 14y agoYou are correct, it won't affect the omnipresent Google because virtually everyone has visited their domain at some point. This will target alternatives to Google, leaving us with one company to do effective advertising. How is this in the interests of the end user is beyond me, really.
- ihsw 14y agoYoutube, Facebook, and Wordpress.com already have their own tracking systems so they won't be affected by this change at all.