161–170 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fingerprinting is hardly just advertising.
Then fix fingerprinting. "But fingerprinting!" is yet another pretext for just trying to make advertising in general non-viable for aesthetic or ideological reasons.
Id gladly pay for my content just to watch the ad-tech industry die, its not just about "ads", they are building the infrastructure for the surveillance police state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strictly prefer irrelevant ads less likely to influence me. I really have enough projects, TODO lists, interesting things to buy to last for lifetime of 250 years. Why I would want ads likely to influence me? There is basically no chance that ad will show me useful, worth using object or service to buy that I would not discover anyway. It would be just another scam more effectively targeting me.
This has not been true for me. I have discovered interesting things in Facebook ads that I would not have discovered and bought otherwise. (They were obscure Kickstarter projects)
I've never had this experience, between Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Every "targeted" ad I've been exposed to has either been for something I already have, or for something that's insufficient to my needs.
Because of this, and because I dislike the invasiveness and anti-privacy of modern advertising, I started keeping a log of all of the ads I can remember. Then before I make a purchase, I lookup the product on that list and pick a different company to buy from. If you, as a company, use invasive advertising, I will not be your customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then fix fingerprinting. "But fingerprinting!" is yet another pretext for just trying to make advertising in general non-viable for aesthetic or ideological reasons.
True, we have to make advertising non-viable, that's the point. Id gladly pay for my content just to watch the ad-tech industry die, its not just about "ads", they are building the infrastructure for the surveillance police state.
But why?
> they are building the infrastructure for the surveillance police state.
But FLoC is explicitly about doing ads in a way that does not lead to a "surveillance police state". So why is it bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I have no problems with ad's as long as it doesn't involve any tracking (or lets call it what it is spying). If blog or similar can finance part of their cost with Ad's, why not. Sure on slow internet it's a somewhat different matter. Anyway Ad's okay, but tracking for me is spying and should be treated like that, i.e. it should be illegal. There are ways to have personalized ads without it, like local learn…
Honestly I have no problems with ad's While I have no problem with the concept itself of advertising, I do have a problem with modern implementations of ads. Almost invariably, they are loud (vocally and visually), intrusive, obnoxious and almost coercive in their use of language. They are intended to dumb down the target audience, rather than enrich their targets' lives. I do have a problem with everything that atta…
That's a very interesting move. The patch seems fairly small, but now it's a patch that Brave needs to maintain and update every time they merge a new upstream version. That's what makes me wary of the whole Chromium fork concept. Every time Brave/Vivaldi/Edge/etc decide to take a different path from Google's they effectively add to their maintenance burden forever, even if like in this case they actually disable an…
Seeing: document.interestCohort is pretty abhorrent looking. First-class advertising support in a browser is a major turn-off. Google is probably only a few steps away from losing controlling stake in Chromium, and stuff like this certainly will lead others to flock away.
Why is it abhorrent? FLoC doesn't compromise your privacy. It does interest inference client-side, away from bigcorp servers. It doesn't leak any information about you. But all the "privacy" people are totally against it anyway. Why? Because they just hate advertising. The whole "third party cookies are bad" thing has always been a sham: it was never about privacy. It's always been about killing advertising itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, we have to make advertising non-viable, that's the point. Id gladly pay for my content just to watch the ad-tech industry die, its not just about "ads", they are building the infrastructure for the surveillance police state.
> True, we have to make advertising non-viable, that's the point. But why? > they are building the infrastructure for the surveillance police state. But FLoC is explicitly about doing ads in a way that does not lead to a "surveillance police state". So why is it bad?
The bottom line is that you are giving them your browsing data, obfuscated by fancy algorithms. Unless you trust ad-tech to have the best interests about your privacy (ha!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anyone skilled who works in the advertising industry is freed to offer his skills to better human endeavours. I don't want to be rude, but won't they just end up losing their livelihoods? If the advertising industry goes, most programmers will see their salaries drop hugely. Even those not working in advertising will see a drop due to the flood of supply.
This sounds suspiciously like the argument that coal mining should continue so as to preserve coal-miner jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fed up with all the ads and tracking and it saddens me that even Apple does this shit. I want none of it. This shouldn't exist in your operating system at all.
Why wouldn't they? Apple is in the same business Google is of selling ads and in-app payment processing for apps on their platform. In one respect, Google is better than Apple for warning you ahead of time when an app contains ads. That's not an endorsement, mind you. There's other things Apple does better than Google. But there's no "good guy" here. Only less-bad guys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's really telling is how many people and companies think they're entitled to running ads on my computers and phones, as if I'm the one who is doing something wrong by choosing what I see or don't see.
So the content creators have no right to demand compensation for creating “what you see“?