The problem is people who would pay to avoid ads are those worth targeting... I'd love if a single service could let me opt out of all tracking and ads internet wide for a fixed fee, say $50-$100 a month.
I glady pay for Internet access, cable TV, the cinema, magazines, other content I view. The problem I have is with tracking. Ads should never do anything save show an ad. There should be no attempt to learn about me or track me or sell my data. Magazines I buy don't track me. I ignore ads in the cinema by whiling away that time on my mobile, I FF thru DVRd programs at home. I've paid already. I'm not viewing your dreck.
I wish there was simply a way where ad-supported sites I visit could collect their revenue without having me submit to advertiser surveillance. I don't mind seeing ads. I hate being tracked.
yeah it should be illegal to ad / track users who have paid
given how crappy the ads ecosystem has become to browsers, if I'm paying for something, I want out of all of that
legislation should make a bright line here. I don't want to see an ad in a taxi, on an airplane, in the dentist's office, and certainly not if I've paid for nyt
maybe carve out limited 1st party tracking, maybe not
We do people who advocate for advertising insist so hard that pervasive tracking needs to be a part of it. If pages were serving up plain, static images, probably free of pervasive tracking, I wouldn’t feel the need to take the nuclear approach to ad tracking. Advertisers have really wrought this upon themselves.
I’m actually happy to pay for the media I consume, I actually do pay for some things, but nobody gets their advertising/trackers let through because the whole industry is patently untrustworthy. If publishers want ad revenue from me, they can remove pervasive tracking, it until then, they get nothing.
Also another reason to run a network wide ad blocker like AdGuard or pihole. Even if this tracking works it’s way through the ads will be useless if they don’t make it inside your network.
I'm OK with advertising, but not with tracking. The problem for me is that most advertising is served from a host other than that of the publisher, so tracking can be done by the ad server.
That is, say HN were to publish AdSense. HN's webmaster would add a small snippet of Javascript, that fetches the ad itself from Google's server. That would enable Google to track me.
I am, for the most part, completely cool with ads that are served from the same IP address as the web page I'm looking at.
They don't need paid subscribers. Physical papers and tv have been supported by ads without tracking for decades. Companies pay for space or time.
Internet allowed advertisers to track so now we have this BS. They had many years to fix this. But tracking is the business of many companies like google and facebook. Now lot of people uses ad blocker and it's increasing.
Great, then I can easily see that I do not wish to access your website!
Ads should be blocked relentlessly until companies realize what reasonable, secure and tasteful ads look like, instead of the intrusive malware-ridden pile that interrupt our lives at the current time.
Tracking, on the other hand, will never have a place in this world.
Not to mention they still show me ads if I pay, which means I'm now paying them for the privilege of having ads I don't want shoved into my face and paying for the privilege of being tracked.
I would prefer not to, as I'd like to support the websites I browse. However, the privacy issues that come from invasive tracking that ad networks do is something I can't support.
Agreed - this and allowing _enough_ tracking that publishers can actually understand where ad budget is best spent, without jeopardising an individual's privacy.
I am in perfect control of my reading experience when I have a magazine in my hand. I can either look at the ads or skip them, or I can just glance at one and decide which way to go.
This is in contrast to web where I'll have to start by choosing a set of ad-blocking plugins to allow me back even some of that control even before I've read a single article online.
I don't particularly even care that much about ad networks tracking me, that's more like a philosophical / ethical question that is invisible in the daily life. Web ads aren't bad because of tracking, it's just that they're mostly bad ads.
My point of view is that I don't care being tracked, as long as I'm paying for said tracking. I browse the web with NoScript, Ghostery, uBlock, AdBlock etc because I don't want to be used as a product without my consent.
But I'd gladly pay 10-20$ more per month to my ISP for access to quality journalism, where payments are arranged for by my ISP through some tracking cookie or whatever.
I think the issue is that there isn’t a transparent option to pay directly. Why not say “opt out of tracking and pay $5/mo, or allow ad tracking” and see what people choose?
reply