201–210 of 304 posts
On a mobile OS level, however, you cannot: There is probably not a single mobile app that does not connect to at least one ad, tracking etc. server. I hope that at least Apple will offer solutions on an OS level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but people whine when they see ads that are not to their interests either. there is no way to win.
advertise me computer shit cuz I'm on HN. don't store all my data and track me and store it in insecure databases which you handover to despots.
If you're worried about your entire history being used, I'd point to social networks like Facebook/Twitter/Google that have far more info, including personal details, and keep it permanently. If you are worried about privacy, read the ToS of those services very careful and either opt-out or delete your information because that's a whole different level to what most ad networks have.
It's interesting to think of this as a nuclear option for Firefox. The only incentive they have not to turn it on immediately is that it could poison relationships with site owners such that they stop testing their sites on Firefox or outright block Firefox users, but if Firefox market share ever diminished to the point where site owners were already neglecting Firefox then I see no reason why Mozilla wouldn't damn t…
Mozilla could also implement shims, to make sites continue to work. So if a site breaks because it makes a call to a tracking library but that's now throwing an error, just provide that same tracking library's functions, but obviously they won't do anything. This would at least fix sites that aren't going out of their way to break things.
It's very impractical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but people whine when they see ads that are not to their interests either. there is no way to win.
That's quite the false dichotomy you have set yourself up there, i bet it provides all the justification you need to track people without their knowledge or consent.
The dichotomy is either you have generalized ads or they're targeted closely to you. What is false about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its definitely true ads are highly effective and one must admit highly effective on oneself as well. Look at Microsofts recent resurgence, their marketing budget has begun to rival that of Samsung and anecdotally I see their ads everywhere. However ads are not the end all. There are many deciding factors why someone buys a product outside of purely ads, but again ads are a very strong driving force. I don't think int…
In my world, Microsoft started to turn hate into, "I will take a second look at what you are offering--maybe--if I'm in a good mood." Their advertising is still just noise, and a huge waste of money in my world. I started to turn when they offerd some products for free.(I still don't use the products they offered, but it was a nice gesture.) The best Ad I heard was on here. A guy commented, 'I like my Surface. I use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite the false dichotomy you have set yourself up there, i bet it provides all the justification you need to track people without their knowledge or consent.
That's quite a big inference you made from just a few words. Where am I proposing tracking without knowledge or consent? The dichotomy is either you have generalized ads or they're targeted closely to you. What is false about this?
Note the juxtaposition of imagined agency on part of the user, they supposedly complain a lot about it and want it changed right? So the solution is tracking!
Also some vauge language burried 40 pages into a EULA isn't knowledge or consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Poor people aren't robots. They can and do see adverts for things that they don't then buy. Ah, the grand delusion of advertisers put out again. Sure, people aren't robots, but if ads couldn't influence their behaviour no one would pay for them and there wouldn't be any.
It pretty amusing to see pro advertisement people argue that ads aren't predatory because they're not ACTUALLY effective you see..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
advertising hosted on the same domain as the website might not track you beyond the domain itself. But since most websites share common ad networks those ad networks can effectively track you while showing their ads.
How would they do that without the ability to use the same cookie? The only way I can think of is to track you by ip address.
I would love for Mozilla to find other means of funding online content besides advertising. In either case I'd love to see them take a hard stance on privacy and against tracking. They should block trackers that have no effect on website features and restrict and monitor the ones that do effect features. ...and this is another reason Mozilla needs to have their own search engine. They could have much greater influenc…
There is already a privacy respecting search engine, DuckDuckGo
Unless, DuckDuckGo plans on punishing websites that heavily use tracking cookies and/or they're a nonprofit that aims to advance the web they aren't actually relevant to what I was saying.
Man, ads are great. They allow content to be targeted towards people that could potentially not afford the content and towards people that might not necessarily use the product normally. The world is already significantly divided by wealth. Assuming someone poor even has access to a service like Google, imagine if it was behind a paywall. Could they afford it? If not imagine how much of a life advantage someone wealt…
You're trying too hard. Before Google the Internet was more useful. Smaller and more content focused. I'd gladly go back to hotbot or whatever to get away from Google and their ilk. A combination of disconnect, Adblock pro, and self destructing cookies gets me there.
Google isn't solely responsible for this, but them and other ad-financed companies played a crucial part in building the web as we know it to day. And for me, and everyone I've ever met, the web is a lot more useful today than 15 year ago.