zlacker

>>wyldfi+(OP)
> 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.

This seems backwards to me: the alternative to "targeted ads" are "untargeted ads", aka Spam. Who would rather have spam than targeted ads. Sure, spam might be easier to ignore, but it's also not effective from the company's perspective: showing the ad only to people who might be willing to spend money seems like a good thing to me. It's certainly economical. Which is why I feel like targeted ads are not something we can get rid of.

>>querez+fs
> Who would rather have spam than targeted ads

I would, because the targeting creeps me out entirely. Instagram were so good at it that I deleted the app. In the old days, you stuck luxury advertising in rich neighborhoods and used demographics for broadcast and other media. That'll do.

>>Hard_S+0t
Why should that do when you can do better? Why stop there? That would be like saying "post everything programming related on r/programming, that'll do. Let's ignore that there are more focused venues for my content".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not keen on getting tracked, either. But I can totally see that from a company's perspective, if you can make sure that only people who are interested in your product actually see the ad, that's better. You don't annoy people who aren't interested (not everyone in a rich neighborhood cares about a BMW ad, some already have a Tesla) and you increase effectiveness.

>>querez+wE
> Why should that do when you can do better?

Because "better [for advertisers]" is a euphemism for "worse for advertisees".

> Why stop there?

Because it's deeply unethical.