News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by ams6110 on Sunday April 08, 2018 @11:57PM (#16790225)
I just use uBlock. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on a website.
Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by ehnto on Monday April 09, 2018 @12:23AM (#16790350)
In which case see the last part of the post you replied to.

I personally don't mind if web advertising phases out. I have no idea what the alternative is, but web advertising has become a cesspool of privacy invasion and coercive commercial intent that the world is better off without. In this day and age you might imagine that nothing exists in the world but commerce and advertising for that commerce, and without it no one would publish anything. But it's human nature to communicate and share stories and ideas, and if the web advertising industry fell out from under publishers, the web would still exist.

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by ams6110 on Monday April 09, 2018 @12:33AM (#16790394)
The web existed for many years without pervasive advertising and tracking.

To me the obvious alternative is a return to generally targeted ads as are found on television or in print publications. They are targeted to general audience for the program/publication, and can be served inline with the main content (and therefore not blocked) and require no tracking.

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by Someone on Monday April 09, 2018 @02:07AM (#16790764)
If you have enough visitors it can still be better targeted than television or print. You can A/B test a series of ads, and if it turns out one of them statistically gets clicked less on drop it from the pool.
Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by kosei on Monday April 09, 2018 @12:20AM (#16790336)
How do you think it all plays out if everyone decides to block ads and not pay for content?
Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by TeMPOraL on Monday April 09, 2018 @12:35AM (#16790402)
The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - will stay. The good content will be kept afloat by donations. The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense". The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear.

The Internet would become leaner, but I can't see how it would not also become better.

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by lwansbrough on Monday April 09, 2018 @01:19AM (#16790601)
> The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - will stay.

That's assuming these people have other jobs (which will have to somehow be funded by something other than ads or selling data -- bye bye 90% of Silicon Valley.) Having other jobs means they won't be able to spend as much time on it and quality will suffer.

> The good content will be kept afloat by donations.

Donations often don't stretch beyond what's required to do the work that's been done before (people don't often donate once the donation goal has been reached.) This stifles growth.

> The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense".

So companies that derive their value from the content they produce and sell ads on have to write off their entire business model as a "marketing expense". Good idea. Say goodbye to virtually all online publishing that isn't paywalled already.

> The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear. You mean like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter...?

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by dingaling on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:40AM (#16791343)
> You mean like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Twitter...?

Three of those provide paid-for tiers. The other two that do not, well...

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by beedogs on Monday April 09, 2018 @01:07AM (#16790550)
In that situation?

Optimally.

It plays out optimally.

If everyone suddenly installed and ran an aggressive ad-blocker, we could strangle all of the tracking networks overnight and the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place.

People who refuse to concede that allowing ads is functionally the same thing as inviting third parties to monitor your browsing patterns and invade your privacy are being disingenuous.

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by lwansbrough on Monday April 09, 2018 @01:20AM (#16790607)
Explain to me how some of the world's most popular services would operate without advertising revenue?
Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by fulafel on Monday April 09, 2018 @01:32AM (#16790646)
It's easy to see how "the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place" could be true while "some of the world's [previously] most popular services would operate" could be false at the same time.
Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by beagle3 on Monday April 09, 2018 @02:01AM (#16790747)
That’s a cousin of the broken window fallacy, I am not sure it has a name, though.

How would the horse merchants operate if everyone used cars?

How would window fixers survive if there were no stones being thrown?

Re:The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking serv... by beedogs on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @12:12AM (#16798932)
They might not be able to. But popular doesn't mean necessary or good.

We'll survive without Facebook or YouTube.