"If a business model wouldn’t work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail." (last line of the article)
Since the invisible hand of the free internet appears to be arthritic, a more visible hand (fist?) is necessary. And we have it in the way of request blockers such as uBlock Origin, wich can compleltely block Facebook's and Google's tracking in their tracks. As more and more people turn to subversive solutions such as privacy oriented request blockers and ad blockers, we may finally turn things around.
My hope is on an open source browser that is entirely privacy oriented, easy to use and adopt by non-technical users.
The last line from the article you quote is spot on.
Why are alleged "services" provided for "free"?
One group will tell you it's because advertisers are picking up the costs for "content". Another group will tell you that it's because no user (cf. advertiser) would pay if a "fee" were charged to use the www.
Of course, no "free" business model will dare test the theory of the later group, so I guess we'll never know how the user values these "services". Instead the investors and advertisers set the value. Grossly inflated.
In the early days of the internet as I remember it the real (non-hardware) costs for the internet were tolls on telephone calls (dial-up). Organizations picked up the tab for employees who used the internetwork. Tuition-paying students also got access.
Then came UUnet and "ISP's". And then people had their own personal computer, at home, with a network card.
As far as I'm concerned, the internet connection fee is still the only real cost.
I think the browser you allude to is possible. But I think some changes in thinking in how information is structured and presented on the www is needed. If we let the www be shaped solely by web developers with a lust for layers of abstraction and increased complexity and being given carte blanche to run code on others' computers, then it forces the "browser" to be something that is far too complex and too much trouble for any open source volunteer programmer to deal with.
Make the www easier to parse and then the www "browser" becomes easier to replicate. This is only my opinion. Others would certainly disagree.
I believe we need a multi-pronged approach to retaking the internet from the forces that dominate it now. One prong is a resistance movement, such as I suggest above. Another is to innovate on better ways to finance content and services on the web, be it micropayments or something else. And another is to find a way to counter or eliminate the perverse incentives that drive clickbait, garbage content and viral shallowness. It is not accidental that I allude to Adam Smith's invisible hand above. He and others knew the key was to understanding the feedback loops. The internet's feedback loop is broken. Clicks and quantity drive revenue, not quality.
And yes, my username is a reference to Star Trek, a show which is probably too socialist for the heavily anarcho-capitalist-leaning libertarian crowd here on HN (See the link in my reply to username223).
I'm working on setting up a website where we can raise awareness, change hearts and minds, and support efforts that help us retake the internet. I cannot do it alone, even with my evil goatee. Email me if you'd like to help.
Since the invisible hand of the free internet appears to be arthritic, a more visible hand (fist?) is necessary. And we have it in the way of request blockers such as uBlock Origin, wich can compleltely block Facebook's and Google's tracking in their tracks. As more and more people turn to subversive solutions such as privacy oriented request blockers and ad blockers, we may finally turn things around.
My hope is on an open source browser that is entirely privacy oriented, easy to use and adopt by non-technical users.