zlacker

>>wyldfi+(OP)
This captures my feelings on the issue:

> That framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads.

I don't want to be tracked. I never have wanted to be tracked. I shouldn't have to aggressively opt-out of tracking; it should be a service one must opt-in to receive. And it's not something we can trust industry to correct properly. This is precisely the role that privacy-protecting legislation should be undertaking.

Stop spying on us, please.

>>dlesli+Fb
Do you use Web Monetisation ( as in, pay)? If you don't, and don't want to be tracked for ads, how do you propose things work?

>>sofixa+lm
I would much rather pay than be tracked. Unfortunately many sites don't give me that choice.

>>chipga+Fm
Simple answer: The sum of all online marketing dollars is more than the sum of any amount of money people would pay for online content.

That alone means direct payment will never replace ads.

Most people are not reading The Financial Times or Bloomberg, they are reading rags like The Sun and Facebook gossip. I would love for that content to go away, but really, ad supported models work great for that demographic.

>>throwa+Nq
You're right, but there is a solution: make online marketing worthless. Install an ad blocker.

>>coldpi+3C
What is already happening is that ads get embedded in the content.

Paid content, product placement, YouTubers pitching Audible book related to video.