Yes, I agree. That is indeed another unoriginal, stale perspective.

The question for me isn't so much whether hear from one side more than the other, but whether there is some new idea. For me, intellectual content matters much more than equal representation in (social) media.

By this measure, the OP's post is equally trite.

>In the context of Ads. Not all ads are large-scale collection of personal information.

We're talking about Google ads here. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

>Which is what FloC was ( AFAIK ) trying to solve.

Leaving my skepticism aside for a moment, this may have been an opportunity for OP to provide some insight into how the adtech market is evolving, and make the case that it is headed in an ethical direction. He did not. There is no insight here, either.

So again, I think a downvote is a pretty reasonable and measured response. The OP's post was unconvincing and cliched. No big deal. I've written plenty of stuff like that, myself.

There's a section of post with "build browser APIs that will allow this kind of well-targeted advertising without sending your browsing history to advertisers, and then get rid of third-party cookies"; I'm curious what you think of it?

Random generic advertising is fine. It isn't as profitable but it doesn't exploit a person's mental weaknesses. Targeted advertising is straight up exploitation.

Kids being bombarded with ads for plastic surgery nonestop on TikTok, radicalized individuals being targeted with fear-based ads. This is super toxic. And while advertising is a tale as old as human commerce, such insane targeted advertising is not.

I think that's what ads should be - exactly like TV.

Ads sucks and it is alive due to economic incentive from ads. And we know where there is economic incentive its hard to stop (eg. bitcoin mining economic incentive)

(If you said it was signaling race or wealth or something I would understand, but virtue?)

The "badness" of the ads results from the selecting function and what becomes sustainable and favored. Infamously with spam and phone calls it can include outright crime.

The insanely annoying thing that I have seen for a long time is that despite the fact that you have more information on me than anyone else the ads have been either useless or even insulting for years.

I remember bothering to click through the microscopic x in tve corner and select not relevant or something on Thai mail order brides. What did I get next? Filipino mail orders brides. Out of curiosity I marked a number of them as not relevant and I think I also saw:

- Polish

- Ukrainian

- Chinese

- and possibly a couple of more nationalities

- later I got ads for older women near me

- and then gay cruises

This went on for years.

Last year I finally started seing ads for electronics etc but now I feel no remorse for blocking ads anymore.

I'm just fed up.

Meanwhile Facebook, for all their faults and despite me blocking them for far longer than Google actually has had interesting ads.

Edit: I've nothing against Filipino or Thais or gay people or anyone, but I have something against scantily clad women etc showing up on my monitor both at work and at home and I think it says something about Google that they think this was the most relevant ads they could show me for years.

Work and personal.

Much more likely explanation IMO (someone please correct me if I am wrong):

Google get paid by the view these days and optimize for the most expensive views.

Yes it doesn't drive as much engagement, but that's the point. Over-optimizing for engagement is a bad thing. We have seen repeated evidence of this.

There should be general overarching categories: News site, food site, movie site, game site. But not "news site for radical right-wingers who believe in tucker carlson and think gun control is communism" which doesn't really require user tracking, but I think still falls on the bad side of things.

"Is a kid" is interesting. There's literally laws to prevent children from receiving too much advertising on TV _for good reasons_ their brains aren't developed enough to counter it. But on the internet? ANYTHING GOES!

This is "mainstream Republican" and it's about 1.5bits of information after "is UA resident".

Tucker is one of the most popular people in the USA.

I'd apply the same logic here: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Ad supported models on news paper websites have nearly killed publications like NYTimes. A lot of smaller news papers have died. Only after the paywall model really took off have they been able to survive and thrive.

So there's nothing you can say to the media that will convince them that there's value in ads.

To them, ads and big tech in general are evil entities and must be criticized at every possible turn.