Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A lot of websites make parts of their revenue from ads. This would be almost impossible for all of them.



Webshites [sic] that include multiple pop-ups, privacy violations, and other nastiness that get in the way of me reading the text on the page ought to go bankrupt.

They provide a public dis-service and the world is better off without them.

Yes, there needs to me a new business model for monetising content.


Agreed. We need to fix the web's default business model to something that does not require people to be tracked all the time.


If we fix that and crypto we are up to web 4.0 ...


Why? If that gets me free stuff I'm fine with being tracked.

Why don't we let users decide instead of letting a vocal minority dictate laws that ruin everyone's browsing experience?


Mostly because it's not free. The money still comes from you, otherwise targeted tracking and advertising wouldn't make a profit, and wouldn't exist. For advertising supporting "free stuff", you have to accept one of a handful of potential realities:

* Advertising companies are taking a loss, and are funding free websites out of the good of their hearts. (we know that this is not true)

* Advertising companies make a killing, but the money still somehow doesn't come from you, so it is somehow being taken from somewhere else, or the companies paying for the advertising are taking a huge loss.

* The money actually still comes from you, but most of it is going to the advertisers instead of the content that you actually want to support, and it comes from you in a roundabout way over a longer period of time so you don't even notice it.

In short, if the companies are getting the money to run their "free content" AND the advertising companies are making a big profit, where does the money actually come from? It has to come from somewhere, it isn't being printed and gifted to the advertising companies. There's only one place I can see that this money comes from, and that's the people being advertised to.

Why is anybody okay with being psychologically manipulated knowing that the benefits of the manipulation primarily come to the manipulators rather than the content that they like? And also knowing that the manipulation itself continually warps and corrupts the content as everything is being optimized toward pure "Engagement" rather than actual useful information? Wouldn't you rather pay directly for the thing that you like than be subtly manipulated into paying some weird third party longer down the line?


Businesses ruined their web sites and everyone's browsing experience, not law makers.


The power gained over people when they submit to being monitored by pocket 1984 telescreens leads to totalitarian bullshit, inevitably. Free stuff for now, lost rights forever. It doesn't matter who is recording you, the information will end up in the wrong hands, and has. Maybe I seem hyperbolic, but on longer time scales there is certainly a trend towards taking our agency from us as we become more dependent on tech. There is no free lunch. What I would give, to be the guy everyone hates for taking their free shit away and saving democracy...


> vocal minority

A vocal minority that gets paid a cushy upper middle class wage and can afford to “pay for every website view”.


I don't get why people like you complain. Just do not read those websites. Do not support them actively like you do now...


Websites had ads before analytics, they just weren't targeted specifically to you. They had to make educated guesses based on the content of their site, in the same way magazines did.


If your site is mostly used with an account, you can easily have targeted ads without cookies.


The law isn't just for cookies, though. It's for consent for all kinds of tracking/data gathering, of which cookies is only one means to do that.



Serving ads doesn't require cookies


Exactly. And it's also frankly absurd we've been accustomed to the idea of ad networks autonomously publishing content on websites. The idea that a serious magazine would have printed an ad that no-one had seen before would have been bizarre. Today however you see this "get rich fast" and "miracle weight loss" ads on otherwise reputable news sites.


Sure. But they can’t fool people into accepting just because their “business model” relies on it.


Ads are OK but it's the tracking of me which is what I hate. An ad you can ignore but tracking is at the least annoying at the worst feels invasive, dangerous, security implications.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: