zlacker

> I mean, if I am looking for a notebook, I rather have FB/IG (or Google or whatever), show me adds of a notebook that I might end up buying, instead of the generic poker/porn adds that we had on the beginning of the internet.

That's all fine and dandy, I think. The problem starts to become a bit bigger when suddenly everyone in your household starts to see "chlamydia medication" ads everywhere they go online based on some message you sent a month ago to a friend.

> It is almost impossible to have a free internet without ads. So on one side, people want everything free, on the other side, we don't want ads, so there is a clear problem here.

I'm not sure that's so obvious as you make it seem. There are lots of long running websites that don't survive on personalized ads created based on behavioural profiles created by data harvesters.

>>capabl+(OP)
We have no reason to assume that FB is using message content to target ads.

>>capabl+(OP)
It's not just that someone else will know that you have chlamydia, it's that they have your data and you don't know what they will do with it. We don't know what they can do and there could be more serious stuff.

>>konsch+F
its facebook....assuming anything but the worst handling of user data is beyond foolish

>>konsch+F
That's not the point, it's not even necessary to use message content. All it takes is the other person looking up the subject somewhere. It's the same with devices supposedly listening in on conversations, there are far simpler and cheaper ways for advertisers to get the same data.

>>konsch+F
Op said "sent a message to a friend", it made no reference to facebook

Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds

Ought be noted that while WhatsApp to my knowledgeable doesn't carry such a clause. It would be idiotic beyond belief to be led to believe that Facebook doesn't do the exact same thing

>>CyanBi+c4
> Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds

They don't: "We will not scan or read your Gmail messages to show you ads"

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en#:~:text=Th....

Do you have evidence that they do? I think Google said they did this a long time ago, but they stopped since email content didn't actually improve revenue on those ads. Message data just isn't very helpful for ads, they would do it if it was useful but it isn't so they don't.

>>gatins+U
What do you think they can do?

>>kwanbi+w5
Sell it. Health insurance companies are always interested in more details about your health so they can adjust your premium accordingly. Or use it for excuses to deny coverage.

>>konsch+F
You have every reason to believe FB uses message content to build and enhance your internal FB Profile, which is where ad targeting originates. To believe otherwise is just being gullible. If there is a profit enhancing mechanism lying on the floor, it will be picked up.

>>theway+r1
This comment actually is a symptom of another problem. If you ask a random person if big ad tech should collect personal data in exchange for providing social media for free with ads, they would say no. But then immideately they would also walk into a Walgreens/CVS (pharmacies in the US) and the first thing they are asked at the cashier counter is their phone number and almost everyone just provides it with no second thought. Of course they get some loyalty member discount or whatever, but I don't now why they assume big retailer isn't sellimg the data / going to sell their data in the future. Perhaps just comes down to PR. If big ad tech is so bad and can't be trusted, wonder why no one assumes Google maps could sell your driving/over-speeding data to insurance companies? It's almost like we are told company a, b, c are bad, we haven't put more thought into it and are rejoiced seeing any negative headline about them. Nothing beyond.

>>CyanBi+c4
>> Gmail famously scans the user emails to sell the info to third parties and sell adds

Please stop repeating falsehoods.

>>hdhian+Q8
In fact they've been doing it for over a decade

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...

>>mcv+x7
So what you need to do is regulate what they can do with the data, not forbid personalized ads.

By the way, here in Europe we have universal healthcare, maybe is something the US should consider?

>>kwanbi+pc
Is there any good reason not to both legally protect privacy and ban the largest part of the market for the invasively collected data (which seems to me to fall nearly under regulating what can be done with the data)?

>>kwanbi+pc
We don't have universal life insurance in Europe though, maybe think things through a bit. Your arguments are so thin and bad faith that I'm convinced you're just trolling now.

>>thfura+Hg
Are you willing to pay for all internet websites then?

>>drcong+3l
What do you mean? Of course we have universal healthcare, at least in Germany we have, and in Spain also, same for Switzerland, and Netherlands.

But is funny, people want all (most?) things free, nobody wants to pay for news for example, but they don't want ads at the same time.

Makes no sense at all.

>>kwanbi+6u
Banning personalised ads does not mean banning all ads. Although personally, I'm no fan of any kind of ads, and I wouldn't mind if the entire ad industry disappeared.

And if that means ad-driven websites disappear too, I don't see that as a big loss. The best websites are not ad-driven.

>>kwanbi+6u
Many websites don't have ads, and I'd be happy if all others disappeared.

>>xigoi+jC
Ok but you’re not the only person on the internet. Other people have different preferences, and in fact some even enjoy personalized ads. Nobody is forcing you to look at ads on the internet, so why is it fair to force others to not look at ads on the internet?

>>chroma+SG
If some people like being spied on and some don't, why would you oppose the legislation that websites should let people choose for themselves if they want to be spied on?

>>chroma+SG
The solution is obvious: make personalised ads and ad profiles opt-in. Those who want them can choose to give up their privacy and eye-ball capacity, while the rest of can be free from those intrusions.

>>mcv+7w
Do you think a generic ad has the same value as a personalzied ad?

>>kwanbi+6u
I think the prevalence of free-to-use websites is a collosal market failure. They're a massive distortion to markets, far bigger than Uber running around losing billions a year, and they also put their thumbs on the scale more directly by deciding that certain things/topics can't be advertised or advertised on.

>>kwanbi+dJ
I think they're all worthless.

>>capabl+(OP)
Great so regulate personalization around certain types of products like medication and medical treatment. I don't understand how this scenario explains why we should throw out this whole category of business.

>>kwanbi+pc
Only a minority of the world population has universal healthcare. There is a big world outside of Europe and the US and most of it lacks healthcare. Maybe we should focus on the first order problem (for this thread) rather than trying to bring universal healthcare to the entire world (impossible in our lifetime).

>>mcv+9T
You are wrong. Personalized ads are worth far more to advertisers and publishers. Also to the end users based on their actual behavior.

Source - worked on ads for a few years at FAANG.

>>mcv+7w
> Banning personalised ads does not mean banning all ads.

People prefer personalized ads. I know many friends who like Instagram ads, but don't care about ads on some random news site.

>>xigoi+jC
Can you please share the list of websites you use which don't serve ads? Would love to see an internet experience without ads and without stealing the content via adblockers.

>>Restle+s31
Yeah, but they're worthless to me. I don't think I've ever clicked one of those personalised ads. Their personalisation sucks, they generally show stuff that's not remotely relevant to me, and I've long ago learned not to click any ads.

>>Restle+c41
It's not possible to provide an exhaustive list, but for example:

* Hacker News (has promoted content, but without tracking) * Lobste.rs * Wikipedia * Mastodon * Project Euler * Notabug.org * Lingva Translate * Documentation for numerous FOSS projects * Various personal blogs

Honestly, it's hard for me to find websites that I regularly voluntarily use and do contain ads.

>>xigoi+y71
What do you use for - search, emails, online shopping, news (you mentioned HN but links submitted on HN have ads on them, unless you read only the HN comments)

>>Restle+v91
Search: Kagi

E-mail: Disroot (but with any provider that supports IMAP, you pretty much never have to visit their website)

Online shopping: while some of the sites may have ads, they could easily survive without ads because, well; they literally sell products

News: if HN stopped allowing links to websites with ads, I certainly wouldn't miss them

>>chipga+TY
The "category of business" they are going after is businesses that harvest users personal data without their full consent. Is that a category of business you think should still exists?

>>chipga+TY
Why should the EU limit itself to regulating personalization around healthcare matters instead of regulating all personalization generally?

The "whole category of business" doesn't have a right to exist, and the EU has the right to regulate it out of existence. And why shouldn't they? Because it would be bad for your employer or your stock portfolio?

>>kwanbi+su
> What do you mean? Of course we have universal healthcare, at least in Germany we have, and in Spain also, same for Switzerland, and Netherlands.

Healthcare != life insurance - they're very different things. Are you deliberately conflating them because it suits your argument?

> But is funny, people want all (most?) things free, nobody wants to pay for news for example, but they don't want ads at the same time.

Again, you're conflating two groups of people because it suits your internal narrative and makes you feel superior. I don't want ads, but I'm happy to pay for things, and I'm also happy to just not use a service that wants to spy on me and sell my data like YouTube and Facebook. According to your statement I don't exist.

> Makes no sense at all.

That's because you've made it all up.

>>kwanbi+w5
Get hacked, phished, or otherwise expose the data to the world.

Personal data should be toxic with high potential liability costs. This would naturally cause companies to limit their data retention and use.

>>Restle+v91
I use a mailreader to read email. No ads unless someone is spamming me, but that's pretty rare these days. Online shops don't need ads because they already sell their own stuff. I have my own news subscription. Admittedly many shared news links do have ads. For search I use DuckDuckGo; they don't seem to have ads most of the time, but if they do, at least they don't track.

I'm not going out of my way to avoid sites that use ads, but I also don't feel obliged to enable their business model; that's their business, not mine. I care about controlling my own desktop.

Keep in mind that there is a lot of content out there that's funded by Patreon rather than ads. And I think the quality of Patreon-funded content is generally higher, because people consciously choose to support it, rather than it having to use clickbait and other dark patterns to lure your eyeballs in.

>>xigoi+Lb1
HN won't exist if there are no news sites and almost every site has ads on it.

>>Restle+DK4
Many of the best sites I've discovered through Hacker News are ad-free.

>>chroma+SG
And I’m sure that some people like being paid sub-livable wages in company scrip. But that the preference exists doesn’t mean it’s in society’s best interest to let those people get what they want.

>>xigoi+xO4
Mind sharing a few examples? Would be great to know a few ad-free sources.

>>Restle+z2b
Sorry, in my massive list of bookmarks, I have no way to tell how I found out about the sites.

>>xigoi+Y2b
I am not asking about how. I am just asking which ad-free news sites do you use.