I think precedent should be set that we are not selling our IP, if we agree to let someone have it we are licensing it to them with strict terms about how it can be used, for what purposes, and for how long.I like your perspective?
Yet I think Facebook has a point about free websites. But maybe we could go back to actually paying for something’s worth and rather opt in for ads if we want sites discounted or free. I guess we have to get used to more paywalled sites anyway if more and more people block ads.
And your reasoning should definitely be used for tracking and data harvesting. And I think that the next logical step is to regulate the whole tracking industry and let individuals own their data themselves.With royalties. So that those who want to harvest our “resource” of data would pay us and even give us a share every time it is resold.
Question : How many complaining about Facebook on this thread are actually on Facebook?
I don't use Facebook, which is precisely the whole problem for me, because I am aware that Facebook continues to track me across the websites and apps I use, and build a profile on me, and there is evidently no way of telling Facebook to stop doing this.Question : How many complaining about Facebook on this thread are actually on Facebook?
Honestly, I am getting quite sick of ads on websites. I have 2560x1440 resolution. There are some websites that ONLY have about 500x600 resolution devoted to the content. Everything else is ads. There are many websites I like, but stopped visiting because of the ads. I really wish more websites would act like Macrumors. I would gladly pay for an enhanced account that does not include ads.
As the rest of your post proves, this is not true. People don't care about ads or tracking or privacy. People will not pay money for it, regardless of consequence.Facebook would be a lot more successful if they started offering the web ‘ad free’ for $5 or $10 a month.
What? What’s not true. I pay money for internet I want. Millions already do. More would if it wasn’t so hard. Facebook and google do everything they can to prevent you the customer from paying for content up to and including destroying entire product categories just to make the barrier of entry by competitors as difficult as possible. I think most people accept ads because they don’t know about alternatives or they were effectively removed or they don’t understand their actual cost. I believe the latter is slowly changing.As the rest of your post proves, this is not true. People don't care about ads or tracking or privacy. People will not pay money for it, regardless of consequence.
Exactly.Advertising did just fine before tracking.
Yes - that's exactly correct. If your desire for privacy interferes with their need to profit from the data they collect from you, that's a Bad Thing and must be stopped. You, the FB user, are merely product. That's at the root of their business model.I am very confused. Is FB saying we don't have a right to privacy?
omg, last car I bought didn’t have it on there - I told them if they added it that night during detail I’d walk. I cared that much about “free advertising”. I’ve also sworn to NEVER buy at a dealership here in my area that always put them on crooked. It looks like crap - at least make your free advertising not look like a 2yo put it on. If you care that little about how my car looks, you for sure don’t deserve the free ad.When I said car dealerships should pay me if they want to put their lots name on my bumper (or gosh, back window) people said ‘no, it’s cool’ or ‘no one even notices it’.
Sir, I think you should consider using Brave as your browser of choice:Macrumors has a high number of trackers on their website, one of which is Facebook...tracking you even if you don’t have a profile.
There might be those who could not care less about privacy and oppose the pop-up question as bothering them.Facebook aside, I really don’t see how any user in the Apple ecosystem could conceivably oppose to this move.
Which government is at fault and why?Thank you Tim Cook! You are doing that which our government has so far failed to do.
Conversion rates, probably. Facebook probably has data that indicates that targeted ads drive interactions, while contextual ads may not to the same extent. Of course, just because it drives more ad interactions doesn’t make it right to build an in-depth advertising profile, without users‘ (or even non-users’) permissions, in order to sell more stuff to them or to get permission but to deliberately obfuscate just what you collect in order to collect more. Or to collect seemingly innocuous data without revealing just how valuable that seemingly innocuous data is.how about getting rid of targeted ads and just show relevant ads depending on where they are shown?
like, ads for shoes on a clothing website, or food related stuff on for websites? independent of who is watching and where someone is watching?