> we need a new law barring all 3rd party tracking, data brokering, and all individually tailored advertising

Why do we need to ban it? I care about my privacy. I would like clear disclosures and easy opt outs. But I don't need it banned for everyone else.

>> we need a new law barring all 3rd party tracking, data brokering, and all individually tailored advertising

> Why do we need to ban it? I care about my privacy. I would like clear disclosures and easy opt outs. But I don't need it banned for everyone else.

Opt-outs aren't practical for the consumer and therefore don't work [1]. All that tracking/data brokering needs to be banned unless clear disclosures have been made and the consumer explicitly opts-in.

[1] I know: years ago I literally spent several 8-hour days opting myself out of just one kind of data broker (scammy online people search websites). I still haven't gotten around to doing that for my wife, who is less likely to engage in quixotic quests, and sees opting out as a pointless waste of time.

What would you think about a law that makes easy opt-outs mandatory, with heavy fines for non-compliance?

CCPA tried to do that by requiring a prominent "Do not sell my information" link – and still didn't succeed: https://fpf.org/2019/12/19/examining-industry-approaches-to-...

A significant minority of the target audience has never heard or seen the phrase "opt out." Here's an example just how hard it is to explain what's happening and make this discoverable, let alone make it easy: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/02/ccpa-comments-roun...

> What would you think about a law that makes easy opt-outs mandatory, with heavy fines for non-compliance?

Better, but still not good enough. Finding and filling out 300 simple forms is still a lot of work and requires perfect vigilance. IMHO, opt-out is basically privacy theater: make it theoretically possible but practically impossible.

Any opt-out system that comes anywhere close to being effective is just one default-change away from being the opt-in system that is should be.

If a site knows I’m 35 and like computers and uses that to advertise to me I’m fine.

What I hate is that I search Agoda without being logged in, in an incognito browser. Then I go to Facebook in a different browser and it shows me adverts for those hotels I looked. I hate my data is shared beyond where I initially put it.

If it isn't going to be banned, how about just making it opt-in?

I feel like I must be a broken record, but here goes. Frustrated, more than four years ago, I put together a set of ground rules for online advertising I would find agreeable. It's fascinating to watch how the online ad ecosystem[ß] has evolved since then.

https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html

ß: what do you call an ecosystem formed entirely of parasites?

I mean, this would be enough to get me to whitelist them in my adblocker. Same goes for any other sites that do the same thing. I feel that's a strong, existing incentive.

Probably not as strong as you think. That's some tiny fraction of people who are willing to whitelist which is another tiny fraction of people who block this stuff to begin with.

The people blocking ads are quite a large fraction at this point. Some smaller publications are shutting down completely because ad revenue has dried up. You may be right about how many people would bother to whitelist just because tracking has been removed, but I bet if they included that fact very prominently in their splash pop-up it would have a noticeable impact.

For me, at least, I actively feel guilty reading publications without ads. I don't want journalism to die. But I simply refuse to open myself up to malware and spying for the sake of that ideal. If they want to survive, they need to take responsibility for what they're shoveling into my browser. Otherwise I'll take my basic online safety into my own hands.

If you white list them, they’re going to generate a tracking profile on you (probably tied to your name and credit card company).

Presumably, they’ll directly sell this information to third parties. Even if not, they’ll indirectly share the information.

Given that, how many people would actually whitelist them?