zlacker

>>neelc+(OP)
Its insane that the digital technology of Western world has come to be completely dominated by a couple of advertising companies. The conflicts of interest with societal (including economic) objectives are enormous and the solutions so simple and natural.

That such a pivotal issue is not handled competently with the top priority attention it deserves says more about the state of the US polity than the horned man storming the Capitol.

>>nologi+gX
If you think about it a bit, it's almost expected. Ads are a (the only?) effective way to monetize any digital device. So an advertiser has an interest in nearly all (internet connected) digital technology, as all areas can be exploited for additional advertising revenue by them. Their only meaningful competition at that scale is other ad companies, as nobody else can monetize arbitrary digital devices as effectively.

This is why we need to be politically active and politically effective and I'm glad OP called that out in their post too. It's like reminding people to vote when dealing with the consequences of elected officials.

edit: What business, other than an ad business, can safely say "we don't care what digital technologies we invent, as long as they are popular we can make piles of money." IMO, that is the motto of a dominant tech company. You can see a striking example of this failing with the various home assistants. Despite their popularity, tech companies can't figure out a way to shove ads into the UX, so they can't make money.

>>tetrep+l31
I have always wondered if political solutions are really viable when the free market doesn't care.

We didn't have to buy into these products or allow them to take over or lives if we has an issue with ad companies running them. We could simply not use them, accepting the negative impact that will have on parts of our current life. If the majority of our people don't care and have chosen the convenience, and the dopamine hit of, the digital products should politicians really step in though?

If politicians in a representative democracy are meant to represent the people then it really isn't their job to fix this, the people have already spoken. I don't agree with it and do my best to limit my use of these ad companies, but that doesn't mean it's my responsibility to rip these products of everyone else's hands of they chose their own tradeoffs. If Google wants to do this and people really care, they'll just stop using Google and accept that they won't have access to any services that decide to require this kind of DRM-like verification.