Re:Ad Blocking: The Unnecessary Internet Apocalypse
by cm2187 on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:14AM
(#10264336)
The article doesn't even mention the word "tracking" a single time. To me ad blocking is primarily tracking blocking. And while advertising is a legitimate activity on a free website, tracking users across websites is certainly not. You only need a jpeg to serve an ad, not tons of javascript and supercookies.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ad Blocking: The Unnecessary Internet Apocalypse
by sarahprobono on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @07:27AM
(#10264366)
"First party data" even almost has a better connotation.
Re:Ad Blocking: The Unnecessary Internet Apocalypse
by mbubb on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @08:38AM
(#10264625)
Yes true. There is no way to have targeted advertising w/out tracking.
Re:Ad Blocking: The Unnecessary Internet Apocalypse
by cm2187 on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @09:05AM
(#10264743)
You can. I can arrive on website with an http referrer that says I searched for "holidays in greece" on google. The website can do targetted ads and show me something about greece. What is not OK is that one hour earlier I was looking for details on a camera on a different website and to serve me an ad related to cameras. I don't mind the website I visit tracking me on their website and serving ads to me on thst basis. What I reject is cross-website tracking.
In other words "first party tracking" is OK, "third party tracking" is not.
Re:Ad Blocking: The Unnecessary Internet Apocalypse
by mbubb on Saturday September 26, 2015 @10:15AM
(#10283145)
Sorry for the delayed response... I like the idea you present - just don't see how it would be implemented. Jotted some ideas. Need ot read and think more.
I am sure this has been on HN - no tsure where I first saw it. But this is a very interesting critique:
http://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you....
my thoughts on your point: