Yeah, revenue for that is pennies to the dollar compared to tracking. I am not defending it but it is not a simple switch to stop being evil and everything is fine. Hundreds of thousands of services would shut down that relied on ads to function. Which, again, they are relying on a predatory business model, but still.
> Hundreds of thousands of services would shut down that relied on ads to function. Which, again, they are relying on a predatory business model, but still.
You appear to understand the situation, so I'm not sure why you bring this up as a problem. If a business is utterly incapable of operating without resorting to an unethical business model, then the solution is to shut down the business rather than abandon ethics.
Well, some people don't understand the scope of it. I for the most part think it would be a good move, but it certainly would throw off the web for a good while.
>You appear to understand the situation, so I'm not sure why you bring this up as a problem.
It is a problem, just not one that I think is more important than the benefits it comes with.
>If a business is utterly incapable of operating without resorting to an unethical business model, then the solution is to shut down the business rather than abandon ethics.
I agree, but weigh the impact of other industries that rely on that business as well. It would be a very unpopular move, and given the lobbying in the US, it's unlikely to pass here. And if it passes in the EU that might have other negative impacts in partitioning the web even more. It's a balancing act, and the solution is not as clear cut as "ban tracking in advertising". Knowing lawmakers, do you think this would differentiate between a paid service keeping a user logged in and, say, google ads? I bet the paid service would have an option in the subscription menu to upgrade, is that tracking in advertising? Probably not to 99% of sane people, but can lawmakers (or anyone for that matter) express what they want out of such a law in a concise enough manner to not be misconstrued in a major way?
On practice, everybody was announcing at Google when it used the site's content to decide what to show, and kept announcing at them once they changed into targeting the user instead. The change went mostly unnoticed.
On the other hand, it can be that people detected the change on their results metrics, and decided to increase their spending because of the change. I really don't know how to differentiate this scenario from a normal increase on internet advertising that should naturally happen at the earlier days of a fast growing web. I don't think even Google (that has all the numbers) can tell them apart either.
