This episode of Security Now covered Google’s plan to deprecate third party cookies and the reaction from advertising organizations and websites.

The articles and the opinions of the show hosts are that it may have negative or unintended consequences as rather than relying on Google’s proposed ad selection scheme being run on the client side (hiding information from the advertiser), instead they are demanding first party information from the sites regarding their user’s identification.

The article predicts that rather than privacy increasing, a majority of websites may demand user registration so they can collect personal details and force user consent to provide that data to advertisers.

What’s your opinion of website advertising, privacy, and data collection?

  • Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
  • What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?
  • Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
  • Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
  • Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
  • Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?
  • Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?
  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

    Yes, I already do. I don’t visit Instagram because you need to login to view posts.

    What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?

    I definitely care.

    Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

    Ah, now this is an interesting question. I can certainly see an argument that ads are necessary to support “free” content, although personally in many cases I prefer to pay a subscription to support content rather than being subjected to ads.

    Really though this is kind of a red herring because it’s predisposing that violating your privacy and collecting personal information is a prerequisite to serving ads. It’s required for individually targeted ads, yes, but they don’t need to traget ads to the individual, they could target the ad by site or the contents of the page hosting the ad.

    Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

    I would not visit any site that sold my details to an advertiser.

    Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

    Yes, this is very bad.

    Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?

    There’s a reason I don’t use most “social media” sites.

    Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from a privacy invasive practices of the past?

    Yes, or find a different revenue model that doesn’t invade people’s privacy.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Ah, now this is an interesting question. I can certainly see an argument that ads are necessary to support “free” content

      I understand the need for ads, but having lived through popups, bonzi buddy, and “punch the monkey”, advertisers blew any chance of me not using an ad-blocker.

      • Eggyhead@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ads don’t bother me as much as their invasiveness. I block ads because…

        1. if a business is dirty enough to resort to interference with popups to get attention, I’m not spending money there. Period.
        2. I don’t want to support mass surveillance perpetrated by the industry.

        Give me simple tech ads on tech sites, grocery ads on store fronts, travel ads on travel articles, etc.

        • ard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          i would be fine with a 5 second brand mention, like “this youtube video is paid for by SoapTM”, quietly. And I’d probably think “thanks.” But it’s like they’re trying to overtake the content. Like you can’t enjoy your show because they’re worried you’re not thinking about their brand for the largest possible % of time.

    • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ah, now this is an interesting question. I can certainly see an argument that ads are necessary to support “free” content, although personally in many cases I prefer to pay a subscription to support content rather than being subjected to ads.

      On the other hand, not everyone can afford a subscription, so offering a both ad-supported and paid-for options is ideal, imo. Well, at least as ideal as it gets in a “grind your hustle or you’ll starve” economy.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yes, having a free ad supported option and a paid ad-free option is best, although I would say only if the ad supported option isn’t using individually targeted ads. You should be able to see the content with ads without needing to login or provide personal data.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Plus all of those subscription transactions have individual costs. 3% just to the credit card companies alone. We either need to actually make low-cost microtransactions an actual thing - no Bitcoin is not that thing - or we need to publicly subsidize artists for the sake of art.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, or find a different revenue model that doesn’t invade people’s privacy

      Agreed. The business model is unsustainable, and toxic. As much as I hate paywalls, it’s better than the alternative.

      Nobody could seriously believe that the viability of journalism should be dependent on the public’s malleability and willingness to buy McDonalds burgers. And yet that’s the status quo, more or less.

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I would also like to avoid ads, and pay streaming services rather than cable or anything with ads. Oddly, this hasn’t been the case for any online news sites. The Indy Star is begging and pay walling for subscribers and for some reason, I don’t want to. But I don’t want ads. I admit it’s unreasonable to have neither. They need to pay people like anyone else.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think it boils down to the difference in how we consume these things. You typically go directly to a streaming service with the intent to browse and consume its content, but few people directly consume news sites. More often you’ll either end up on a particular site from a web search or from a link from an existing content aggregator like facebook, reddit, or lemmy. Since you don’t seek out a particular news platform for regular consumption you feel less inclined to pay an ongoing subscription.

        That does raise an interesting idea to me though. What if instead of a normal month to month subscription a news service offered a pre-paid per article account. So, say 25 cents an article say and you can purchase 40 articles for $10, then each article you view deducts from your account. When you get low on remaining articles it can prompt you to top up your account or you can have it auto-renew. Personally I think I’d be far more inclined to something like that because the cost would scale based on how much I actually used the service rather than being an ongoing monthly cost for something I use very sporadically.

        • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          This is great problem solving and a creative idea. I would support this concept for sure. I mentioned in another reply how I keep resisting paying a local news agency a subscription, mostly because of what you said. Frequency.

    • Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is why I wish those micropayment systems took off. I would be happy to pay 20 bucks a month for ‘ad free’ browsing if most of it actually supported the creators of the content i’m accessing.

      10x their cpm is still fractions of a cent for me as a user on a per page view basis, there’s space for winning here if one of the big tech ad companies gets behind it and pushes.

    • Zozano@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      *presupposing

      (Predisposed means you’re more susceptible to something, normally used in medical contexts)

    • nevernevermore@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I use imginn, nitter and redlib to view Instagram, x and reddit info, respectively. I refuse to engage with any of them using a login or having to turn off my VPN.

    • ard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      i can’t comprehend how both the advertiser and the platform agree that ruining the content is even good for either the advertiser or the platform.

  • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Constantly being brainwashed to consume is one of the great evils of our time. Consumerism is bad for mental health and the environment. But advertising also creates many biases in content creation.

    When was the last time you heard anything about bad effects of advertising? Not just superficial “stupid ad” but as a massive corrosive force on society? That is how much freedom of speech we have.

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yeah, large portions of economies are being driven by consumption. I feel like so much stuff is just landfill fodder.

      Massive affects of advertising

      I was hoping you might have some examples, I’m not sure.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Here’s an example.

        I was advertised camel smokes as a kid.

        Everytime I relapse it’s on camels. Camels are shitty and cheap.

        I relapse and then switch to a brand that’s not garbage. Then figure out again how to beat the addiction.

        It’s a substance use disorder directly caused by advertising. And cancer causing (so my physical environment).

        Here’s another mental illness that’s very easy to trace back to advertising.

        Eating disorders.

        • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I think those are good examples, thanks.

          Off topic: I don’t smoke, but do generally hate smoking so much. I dislike the smell, and the affects on people around the user, like you said. I appreciate vaping. Not because of some hopeful idea that it would be safer, but cause I either can’t smell it, or it smells like cotton candy. Who doesn’t love the smell of cotton candy?

          Also, props for quitting all the times you have. I’m probably majorly addicted to caffeine. Like smokers tell me they have one first thing in the morning, coffee is the first desire after I’m out of bed. I’ve already limited myself to two-ish cups/day, but I don’t think that helped. Coffee also has negative effects on others…fortunately, my wife has coffee breath too :)

          • iquanyin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            just to say, it’s about 95% less full of harmful chemicals. even opponents admit that. vaping is safer. not safe but safer. and unlike the 200+ times i tried to quite over 45 years (hypnosis, gum, patch, groups, acupuncture, and a heap 'cold turkey), it took me just a few years to quit by first switching to vapes. and within a month of the switch, i felt better in every way. all the bs restrictions in place are so dumb.

            • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m glad that helped. Was it the ability to dose down intentionally that helped?

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It’s also more addictive than tobacco. Which isn’t saying it’s not safer. But the vape ROA hits the brain faster than smoking. This reinforces the addiction cycle more effectively. One of the reasons crack cocaine is so fucking addictive. It’s vaped cocaine.

              • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                No the other way around. Smoking hits you very fast, almost instantly because it’s very fine particles that pass into the bloodstream. Vaping is much slower because it’s vaporized droplets that get absorbed slowly through mucus membrane, and it’s less effective (like 50% effective after 30 min vs. 100% after 5 min). Nicotine salt e-liquid “improves” that a bit to hit faster, to help people stop smoking. You can find articles and papers on this.

                • treefrog@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Huh… I was basing this info off huberman labs episode on nicotine. He’s usually very accurate (he’s a neurobiologist and a professor at a major university)

          • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Vaping has associated the smell of cotton candy with assholes who can’t keep their smelly (and potentially dangerous) substance abuse away from unconsenting people, because they think no one will mind because it smells like cotton candy.

            Edit: I legitimately prefer the smell of cigarettes at this point. At least no one’s deluding themselves about the social acceptability of that.

            • iquanyin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              let’s ban it along with cooking smells, car exhaust, perfume, and cheap deodorant. and any other smells you personally don’t like. sound good?

              • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                I should just let this go, but part of what offends me about vaping is that people will do it instead of smoking in spaces where smoking is explicitly banned. Since it’s smoking adjacent to me mentally (and to a limited extent in causing harm to third parties), I dislike that. And we do ban things like perfume in gyms because it causes unreasonably unpleasant experiences for the people around you, and I shower after grilling or frying if I’m going out, because it is unpleasant for the people around me. It’s different degrees of unpleasantness for everything, but I don’t think it’s unfair for me to dislike people blowing vape clouds in my face indoors.

                • iquanyin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  where i live, you can’t vape where you can’t smoke, so we don’t have that issue. i can see how it would bug people, for sure.

              • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Just saying that second hand vaping exposure seems to be something that isn’t well understood, but potentially harmful. Just like how vaping is proving not to be harmless to the paper these days. That’s what differentiates it from those other smells you’re mentioning to me.

                • iquanyin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  it’s the same stuff as in digger machines at shows. anyway, in my town you can vape whet you can smoke. which is outside.

              • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                cooking smells

                I wonder if the smell of hamburger is offensive to vegans?

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I was referring to quality lol

            I can buy a pack of American Spirits and half a smoke will satisfy me.

            I finish a Camel, and I’m like, wtf happened to that thing?

      • hcbxzz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The entire goal is to use money to change your behavior. They’re inherently manipulative by definition. It’s literally weaponized mass manipulation. There’s no way to spin that as a positive effect.

        If you think about it in terms of it’s effects, advertising is the closest thing we have to mind control: companies are paying money to change the behavior of millions of people. Even without any concrete examples, you can easily see how dystopic it really is when you just think about the intention alone

      • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Sorry I don’t have any great sources on this. It’s rather speculation because how could you research this scientifically? Even if you could, an experiment like that would actually be unethical! And who would fund this, there is no way to talk in mainstream about advertising without running against massive financial interests. There are some search results but most of those articles look like mental garbage.

        My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.

        Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation which means we constantly have to switch between and adversarial mindset and whatever content we were watching / reading. Or we become obedient and just “let the advertising wash through us”. And advertising constantly has to find new ways to activate our emotions.

        Just as massive is the effect on content produced, there is a “natural selection” that any content that helps sell advertisement is more successful on the market. It’s not just that you can’t piss off your advertiser but that generally you want the consumer to be in a certain mood - or that content producers who do this naturally are more successful and grow.

        Then there are privacy concerns which reduce humans to machines and creates a powerful system that can and is abused for political control (public relations).

        How can any of that not have massive societal impacts, since it’s being done on a massive scale and is near ubiquitous? How can anyone assume these effects are not incredibly bad?

        You could have a country banning advertising that has a kind of “content tax” that is funded publicly and administered independent from the government through separate elections. And that has strict mandates and distributes the money to news papers, websites, movies and video creators dependent on views - similar to music rights agencies. But none of this is even talked about. We’ve completely lost the ability to even think seriously about how to improve our society. I believe in large part this is due to advertising.

        PS: There is a film called “Branded (2012)” about the “horrors of advertising”.

        • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.

          Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation.

          I stopped quoting because you made many good points. I imagine we could find some supporting material for this basic idea. It seems like a safe idea to say people adapt to the environment they are in, including our thinking patterns based on what we take in and feed our minds (books, media, streaming, conversation, etc).

          I wouldn’t be eager for a new tax, but the creative problem solving and imagining new ways to do things is good.

          Also, thanks for the movie mention.

        • iquanyin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          i have an idea. let people buy the books and magazines. the ones people want to read are successful. others oh well. i’m a genius!

          also: you have a good point about our minds working differently.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The great evil is that we keep going to places where we are shown ads, despite having a choice in theory. It’s demoralizing.

      • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m living mostly ad-free due to adblockers everywhere (except android) but most people don’t know, can’t do it or are brainwashed to think it’s amoral to block ads. If more people would catch on adblocking would be made illegal. And either way my personal choice doesn’t change what content is produced and how society is influenced. Personal responsibility doesn’t solve this just as it doesn’t climate change. Because advertising clearly does work.

          • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Is it? Maybe. I managed to install the apps I need from f-droid and use firefox but it felt more difficult than on PC - where you just need to install an adblocker in your browser.

            • Meltrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              What ads are you trying to remove?

              Firefox on android allows you to use uBlockOrigin. YoutubeRevanced is an excellent application patcher system that you can use to remove ads from YouTube, Twitch, Spotify, and many other. F-droid has some good resources.

              If you’re playing games with ads, it’s a little harder. You probably need a piHole on your home network for that (they are super fun either way).

              In general, yes, I guess it’s a little harder to remove ads from your entire phone than it is to just remove them from a desktop web browser. Way better than Apple’s options though.

              • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yeah basically the problem is the apps because mobile browser / mobile websites are less usable than desktop browser. I use NewPipe / PipePipe for youtube on android, hopefully it’ll keep working. Right now I don’t have any ads on android. But I’m only using very few apps. Thankfully the android ecosystem seems to be improving.

                • apolo399@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Both of you should look up AdGuard. It’s the only adblocker I use and it works system-wide.

            • Mkengine@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Use this Site, Go to method 2 -> Android and set up your DNS manually. That’s it, no more ads on Android.

            • iquanyin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              adguard works pretty well for me on ios and i believe they have it for android too. the free version is good, the pro even better.

      • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Congratulations! You’re among the first 1000 minds I liberated! Please sign up here for more updates and exciting discounts! :D

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    8 months ago

    So, internet users may soon need to create accounts on sites they currently access for free. As Laporte worries, “We thought those cookie permission popups were bad, but things may be getting much worse” regarding being forced to hand over personal information just to browse sites.

    Good way to kill your site, this is the one thing everyone hates, from the enthusiast to the casual user, making an useless account for 1 service that you barely use.

    • Mr. Satan@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      Slap Google SSO on that and you’re good. Honestly that’s worse than regular registration.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, if I see a “register an account on this random website” I roll my eyes or close it/back out. If I see “sign in via Google/fb” I recoil with a “fuck no”.

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, I initially was ok with it, but as I have watched these companies I have become less and less ok. I have been contemplating making dummy accounts full of erroneous data so all of the metrics are wrong as a giant middle finger. Sure, I’m a 72-year-old woman in Des Moines, or am I an 80-year-old man in DC? Maybe a 22-year-old in LA? Who knows.

        • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I have a trash google account I made for android emulation and I just use that for those kinds of things.

          The only time I check that mailbox is to click verify links.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Decentralized SSO on the other hand has the potential to be both convenient and privacy respecting.

    • kayazere@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      On mobile it is pretty common to force the user to create an account before being able to use the app, so people may already be trained on it.

      • Andrenikous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Probably what google is banking on. The world relies so heavily on the internet that if every site required sign in there is very little choice people have besides just not using the internet.

    • labsin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      If they need permission for third party cookies and those are now no longer possible, the popups can go already.

      And if a site doesn’t want to serve people that do not accept data hoarding, an account with terms and conditions is the only logical way to go.

      Belgium forced facebook to not track users without an account and they reacted by doing this exact thing (requiring an account to even read pages). It made it a lot easier for me to not having to deal with Facebook at all. If some store or organization only had the info on Facebook, I’ll just tell them I can’t access it 🤷‍♂️

    • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s already fucking bad enough when they popup a newsletter sign up halfway through the article.

      I’d pay fifty bucks every time to have the person who made that design decision slapped in the face with a haddock.

  • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

    Lots of sites require a free account these days. I don’t visit those sites.

    What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?

    I care.

    Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

    I like advertising - how else are you supposed to find out what products/services are available? Regularly visit every website of every company I might be interested in? That doesn’t work.

    It’s data collection I dislike, nothing wrong with ads as long as they’re a reasonably short interruption. Make ads relevant to the content, not the visitor.

    Unfortunately under the current system I don’t see ads, because the only way to block tracking is to also block most ads. Sorry, but ad networks have burned that bridge. It’s going to take time to rebuild it.

    Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

    A website would need to offer some really valuable service for me to “trade personal details”. Even sites where I have an account (e.g. YouTube) I generally don’t log into that account.

    Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

    I think anything that gives users control over wether or not they’re tracked is a good thing - and forcing people to sign up / agree to terms before using a site does that. If websites want my personal details to access them… that’s fine with me. I just won’t use those sites. Other people will make a different decision. It’s how it should be.

    I also think I’m not alone, and plenty of major sites will choose to just not do any tracking. I look forward to using those sites.

    Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?

    I reject that premise. Lemmy is free. I don’t feel like “the product” when I use lemmy. The product is the content and the discussions. If Lemmy has a few ads on every page, I’d be fine with that. I think it’d be a good idea - as long as it’s done right, without invading privacy.

    Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?

    It’s their business, choose whatever revenue model they want. Just be honest and open about it.

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Now don’t be rude, what ever that person likes can’t be that b…😧…🤢…🤮🤮🤮

        Disgusting.

    • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Other people will make a different decision. It’s how it should be

      This is an aspect of the predicted changes I can at least appreciate. Choice/consent. There should already have been obtained and informed consent. But instead, they just did it behind people’s backs. I say that because I don’t think most normal/non-tech people really know or care much about cookies and all the ways this stuff actually works.

      If Lemmy has a few ads on every page

      Ahhh! No please :) …but I understand. Unless these people (hosts) are getting those services paid for by something else, they might need to cover the costs of this like anything else. I really enjoy Lemmy because, at least right now, I feel like it’s in the true spirit of the internet and not a business. It can be for community and discussion like you said. Only reason I’m here. I like asking people wh