Discussions about adtech and privacy always have this kind of ultra-abstract feel to them, for that reason. Finding concrete, specific people who have suffered concrete, specific harms due to better ad tech is nearly impossible, so the space gets ignored by all except middle class activist types who have to resort to ever more manipulative stunts (like this comic book "remix") to try and get attention, to convince people that this is what matters and not other issues.

Also, opposing advertising is kind of a luxury belief. It's reminiscent of the sort of champagne /r/antiwork socialists who earnestly ask, why do people have to work? These people would certainly blanche if suddenly asked to pay the full ad-free rates for all the services they enjoy, especially because the average person's internet experience is being subsidized to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month by advertisers (I saw stats on this once, how much is being bid in the ad auctions on a per-person basis but you can also just work out crude averages from Google's revenue and guesstimated click traffic).

And finally it's also somehow internally contradictory. What would it take to have a world free of annoying ads? Well, people would still need to find out about services, including those they maybe didn't even realize existed. Basically you'd need to replace broadcast brand-style ads with very specific "pull ads" where they're only seen by the people who need to see them. Which is ... exactly what search advertising is.

It works so well that we usually end up get ads for things we already bought and do not need anymore. Doh!

> These people would certainly blanche if suddenly asked to pay the full ad-free rates for all the services they enjoy, especially because the average person's internet experience is being subsidized to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month by advertisers

Seeing that most of the web content is accessed through procrastination which is usually an addiction pattern. I tend to think forcing people to pay the real price would make them consider better if what they consume is really worth their time and money and would make everyone's life much better.

It is like modern transport. Most people use cars and plane for anything not because it is only faster, but because it is heavily subsidized to make them more affordable. In reality if we made people pay the real price for their transportation they would switch to more environment friendly alternative, better air, more liveable cities. Sure everything would be probably more expensive, less immediately accessible, but also immensely more enjoyable.

> And finally it's also somehow internally contradictory. What would it take to have a world free of annoying ads? Well, people would still need to find out about services,

You can do search without advertising. Also mouth to mouth is a multimillenium old tech but but still works a lot better than what google has ever proposed.

I don't really want to this sounds like a reductio ad absurdum but really, this is like saying that you don't need to have written down privacy or free speech rights in a country which is truly democratic because it has been impossible "Finding concrete, specific people who have suffered concrete specific harms". Under your point of view the GDPR is a completely useless law as well, because it protects the user from a phantom menace.

> And finally it's also somehow internally contradictory. What would it take to have a world free of annoying ads? Well, people would still need to find out about services, including those they maybe didn't even realize existed. Basically you'd need to replace broadcast brand-style ads with very specific "pull ads" where they're only seen by the people who need to see them. Which is ... exactly what search advertising is.

There is GIANT difference between advertising and tracking individuals en masse. I have no problem with billboard advertisement or passive one. I still don't like them and personally try to filter them out as much as possible (by paying for services directly or using adblockers) but I don't see them as a big moral issue. With tracking, it's a whole different story! Also, most of the good things that tracking can give users, could nowadays be done on the edge, local to the user device, without reporting it back to the central servers.

It isn't though. It's trivially easy to find people who suffered concrete harms from lack of free speech protections, because they usually end up in prison or exile. Consider what happened to Manning or Snowden. Although most people would agree that it makes sense for there to be limits on free speech for people in the military, nonetheless, they suffered badly for speaking out. Look at the fate of Chinese activists who speak out. Or for a non-government take, look at the lives being wrecked by cancel culture run amok.

> Under your point of view the GDPR is a completely useless law as well, because it protects the user from a phantom menace.

GDPR is in fact a useless law in my view and I've expressed that many times. Partly because it's far, far too vague to be a law at all let alone one with such high penalties attached. But mostly because again, nobody cares. When actual Europeans are polled on what matters to them, internet "privacy" (let's assume for a moment that GDPR actually creates this) doesn't appear anywhere in the list at all:

https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2553

"Europeans thought that the most important issues facing the EU at the moment of the survey were the environment and climate change (26%), rising prices, inflation, cost of living (24%) and immigration (22%). 41% of respondents mentioned prices, inflation, cost of living as one of the most important issues facing their country, before health (32%) and the economic situation (19%)."

Note: cost of living and rising prices are amongst their top concerns. What makes prices rise? Fining companies, imposing onerous regulation on them and preventing them from funding products via advertising.

> With tracking, it's a whole different story! Also, most of the good things that tracking can give users, could nowadays be done on the edge, local to the user device, without reporting it back to the central servers.

Again, "tracking" is a vague abstraction. There's no real harms being done here. Transient anonymous numbers that are linked to general categories of interest aren't tracking in the sense that a government agent following you down the street is, or even the NSA recording all your phone calls. The potential for abuse is just orders of magnitude lower, as evidence by the fact that you can't find people hurt by it. Compare to actual abusive tracking by governments, where people have been drone striked!

As for doing it all locally - maybe one day but ad fraud means you can't trust the client.

That word implies something was originally good and pure. Which seems an unusual take.

> I find it disgusting actually.

Why do you find it more disgusting than the behaviour it is calling out? I think there's a moral imperative to challenge bad behaviour and satire is an effective method.

Which parts are you disputing?

Leah Elliott

Contra Chrome

... a little down in the address bar:

"Remixed from Scott McCloud's Google Chrome Comic"

Next page: Again "Leah Elliott" and "Remixed from..." notice.

So the actual "remixer" isn't hiding or anything.

On the actual webpage, there's an "About" link, which is not hidden or anything either.

So, it might be tasteless, but agitation is a valid style to push ideas across for some people.

Did you look to the comic? Seems yes. Did you read it? Seems yes. So it pushed its ideas across. So, it was successful in a sense.

Welcome.