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
You can have ads without tracking. Print, radio, TV all do this.

>>shawki+xo
You can, but do you remember the times on the Internet when that was the case? I vaguely remember cents per thousands of ad clicks, which would make most websites financially unviable.

>>sofixa+Xp
You can, but do you remember the times on the Internet when that was the case? I vaguely remember cents per thousands of ad clicks, which would make most websites financially unviable.

I do, and the amount of money webmasters made back then was much better.

Some of the sites I ran got $10-$15 CPM. Ad campaigns targeted to my sites' niches could be up to $25 CPM.

Ever since Google introduced AdWords and its race to the bottom, content-heavy web sites are lucky to get 10¢ CPM.

But since the new kids on the block have never experienced a profitable web without tracking, they don't know any better and think it didn't exist.

>>reaper+HK
But AdWords isn't a race to the bottom; it's the opposite. Google's ad business is so big because Google drives so much more value than other ad targeters.

>>readam+FB1
For Google is a race to the top. But for publishers, all we get is crumbs compared to the old days.