zlacker

Yep. And when I’m unhappy with my government, I can vote them out or, if I want to, get politically active.

I can’t vote out Google. Their customers are advertisers, not me. And I don’t know which apps on my phone send my information to Facebook or what they do with it.

>>joseph+(OP)
Then don't use google, duh.

>>konsch+83
Google ad-tech still tracks you as you browse non-google websites.

>>joseph+(OP)
It’s infinitely easier to avoid the companies you don’t like than it is to vote out any part of government. You have near zero power to remove someone you don’t like because your vote is worth next to nothing. However, you have full power to avoid the products and services of a company.

>>pb7+Hf
I mean, if you know how. I once ran across a data product which was Bluetooth mac addresses as they moved through bust streets. Sure it's easy to turn off Bluetooth so that you don't show up in the data, but most people had no idea the collection was happening.

>>pb7+Hf
> It’s infinitely easier to avoid the companies you don’t like than it is to vote out any part of government.

If you can avoid a company, the fact that there is an acceptable alternative itself says that the market is not monopolized and so there is less chance of abuse.

In the markets where abuse is possible there are often monopolies, or there is illusion of choice like a (colluding or copycatting)duopoly or one where all the "competing" brands being owned by the same parent conglomerate etc.

It is very difficult to participate in the modern economy/world while avoiding certain companies. It might be possible but there are both social and economical costs involved that majority cannot afford.

>>pb7+Hf
You can avoid the services of Google and Facebook, but you can't avoid their tracking. Every other website you browse will let them know and your family and friends will happily tell them about you.

>>devsda+6n
> If you can avoid a company, the fact that there is an acceptable alternative itself says that the market is not monopolized and so there is less chance of abuse

Avoiding a company doesn't necessarily mean there's an acceptable alternative. I could use no social media and my life wouldn't be much worse or burdensome.

There's very little I can do to prevent the government from doing what it's doing by myself.

>>xigoi+Gn
Of course I can, I can use ublock or pihole or whatever.

>>vasdae+sr
That doesn't help with the friends and family part. Not to mention that privacy violations should be opt-in, not opt-out.

>>joseph+(OP)
I would like to vote out my homophobic government, but I can't.

I can't avoid not paying taxes to fund the catholic church in my country, that uses that money to lobby homophobic laws... I can block Google and not use them.

This is not a simple "just vote them out", unless you're part of the privileged majority that can affect the policy.

>>Capric+dq
Sure one can refuse to participate in the "market" altogether but like I said, it is a luxury that not everyone can afford to have due to various personal/social/economic reasons.

>>Firmwa+G5
They're not your websites. If you wish, we should make it way more clear about it.

But telling a small newspaper to stop using ads for revenue, when you aren't willing to financially support them is... hypocritical.

In short - just like a lot of "this ids good for you" laws, this will definitely impact smaller companies way more than you think.

>>joseph+(OP)
It's much easier to change what company you do business with than what government you're under. I can't believe you're managing to turn this simple fact on its head and imply the exact opposite.

>>savana+S21
How can I stop doing business with Experian, Transunion, and Equifax?

>>savana+S21
That's not true. Governments most likely have your data within the management of private companies right at this moment (especially Microsoft through Azure, Amazon through AWS, or as a student Google, due to Chromebooks). Changing the private companies that have your data, in some cases has changing your government as a prerequisite.

>>joseph+(OP)
> when I’m unhappy with my government, I can vote them out

No, you actually can’t, in a very real and practical sense.

>>pb7+Hf
Bullshit. My government has my data stored on Azure or AWS or Google Cloud. If I would have children their data would be be collected by their Chromebooks through the public school they go to. You wont find a utility provider that doesn't store your private data in some private company's systems. Same for employers.

>>JAlexo+HE
>But telling a small newspaper to stop using ads for revenue, when you aren't willing to financially support them is... hypocritical.

How do you know I am not willing to pay?

OK, I'll be the millionth commenter to repeat this viewpoint for the millionth time on HN: nobody has issues with online ads to support their favorite newspaper or creator, people have an issue with tracking and targeting ads.

We've had ad supported websites, forums and blogs since the 90's, but those were generic and harmless, and wouldn't track and target YOU.

So if newspapers or any other websites want to use weaponized ad-tech on me, then excuse me, but I'm gonna block the shit out of them with no remorse, to protect myself.

>>lapeti+J41
You can't, but that's not a particularly good example of why it's hard to stop doing business with private companies, because the reason you can't stop doing business with them is that the government has specifically mandated it.

>>savana+S21
It isn’t simple at all. You lack nuance.

You can stop doing business with Mom&Pop’s coffee shop relatively easily, just like you can move to a different town to get away from your city government authority.

But you’re practically never going to truly get away from Meta, Google, Amazon, Nestle, McKesson, ATT, and those behemoths due to their size, similar to how you’re going to struggle to get out from under the US Federal government.

>>Firmwa+mf1
Targeted ads are more effective and therefore fetch a higher premium and therefore monetize the host site better than non-targeted ads. You would need 10x the ads to make up the revenue and there's not enough space or user patience for that.

>>JAlexo+iD
You personally can't, but a majority can. My country just did that (voted out a regressive government).

>>Firmwa+mf1
> How do you know I am not willing to pay?

Because we've been there, done that. How many local or small news outlet subscriptions do you have? I'm pretty sure it's not a lot.

> We've had ad supported websites, forums and blogs since the 90's, but those were generic and harmless, and wouldn't track and target YOU.

And as a result any website with reasonable traffic, would have to put up a million ads - to just break even. Attendance was rising, costs associated with maintenance as well. Advertisers don't want to pay just to show random individuals ads that have close to 0 chance of being useful.

Generic advertising effectively excludes smaller companies from advertising space. If your advertising budget is $50k today, with targeted ads, you can effectively spend it to show your product to people who would be interested in it. Without, you have to spend $1mil on ads to show it to everyone and get results equal to spending $1k with targeted ads.

> weaponized ad-tech

Yes, yes... The "mid 20ies, IT person, with interest in HN" is definitely a weapon to take "you" down. Quit with the hyperbole, no ad tech keeps anything remotely interesting about you.

>>taway1+Iz1
Barely, my Polish neighbor...

And no, they're not going to magically stop funding the Catholic church or become a safe haven for LGBT people.

>>devsda+vD
Yes I don't mean to say the companies are easy to avoid in general, but the OP claimed governments can easily be voted out.