Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

Post by falcolas » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

cirenehc wrote: post #40

dx87 wrote: post #27

Gotta love their choice of wording, "recover lost revenue from ad blocking users", like blocking ads is equivalent to stealing money from the site owner.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

Post by consumer451 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

contravariant wrote: post #58

tinco wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, and it was ridiculously dumb, lots of people go to jail and big fines were levied. I suppose that you have a point and corporations might do it. At the same time I like to believe it's just not worth it for them.

I can find a few small fines, but as far as I can tell nobody went to jail for that one.

Post by mtgx » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

tinco wrote: post #44

Rjevski wrote: post #2

I would not trust any opt-out offered by a company who's bottom line is directly dependent on violating people's privacy. The only opt-out that can be trusted is one that does send any network requests to the stalking company until consent is given. That's the same reason why you wouldn't want to ask an alcoholic to guard a warehouse full of vodka at night, as you'd probably find a few empty bottles the next day. Sam…

And who is going to build that illegal feature into Google's services? And how much are that person, and the other persons that know about it, going to be paid for them to not be a liability? Maybe I'm naieve, but I feel building automated law breaking systems is not something corporations do. I have no doubt individuals within corporations break laws whenever they feel like they can get away with it, but leaving tra…

Post by benologist » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

tinco wrote: post #55

badestrand wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I'm naieve, but I feel building automated law breaking systems is not something corporations do Did you already forget the VW diesel scandal? That was exactly that - a huge corporation systematically breaking the law with lots of people even in the highest ranks aware of and supporting it.

Well yeah, and it was ridiculously dumb, lots of people go to jail and big fines were levied. I suppose that you have a point and corporations might do it. At the same time I like to believe it's just not worth it for them.

    Exxon, Royal Caribbean, Rockwell International, Warner-
    Lambert, Teledyne, and United Technologies each pled 
    guilty to more than one crime during the 1990s.

    Five banks (Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Royal 
    Bank of Scotland and UBS) had to pay a total of $2.5 
    billion to the Justice Department and $1.8 billion to 
    the Federal Reserve in connection with charges that they 
    conspired to manipulate foreign exchange markets.

    In 2008 and 2009, a salmonella outbreak killed nine 
    people across the U.S. and sickened hundreds more. The 
    source of the contamination was traced back to the 
    Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), a Virginia company 
    run out of its CEO’s garage. The salmonella outbreak 
    turned out not to be a tragic accident, but rather the
    direct result of PCA’s and CEO Stewart Parnell’s 
    decision to intentionally ship contaminated products. In 
    2014, Parnell was convicted for his role in the crime.

Post by brettz » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:58 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #61

cirenehc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

But ads don't provide money until clicked on. So there's no money lost by implementing ad blocking. The only real thing lost is the potential that someone will click on the ad.