This is part three of an ongoing, five-part series. Part one, the introduction, is here. Part two, about breaking up ad-tech companies, is here. Part four, about opening up app stores, is here.The ad-tech industry is incredibly profitable, raking in hundreds of billions of dollars every year by...
on r/privacy
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.44K Posts
- 57.5K Comments
- Modlog
removed by mod
The book Manufacturing Consent has an excellent analysis of how advertising is one of the major filters which affect the content of news. Regardless of whether it is surveillance ads or not, the model of advertising, while lucrative, profoundly compromises the integrity of news.
Of course, I understand (and I believe the book also suggests) most news can’t be expected to self-sustain and compete without having ads in their economic model. So this isn’t a rebuttal to the article’s discussion on “Non-creepy” contextual ads.
Bruce Schneier’s also echoed Chomsky in a way when he said that surveillance was the business model of the Internet.
I have started trying to pay more for news access the last couple years. I don’t regret that decision. Its less than I pay for streaming television.
I remember getting a lot of push back not too long ago, when I tried telling a group of people that ‘good news’ is something you have to pay for, because it’s difficult to do.
The MSM, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all that crap is simply the most overt propaganda, tailor made for a mass audience, and free, precisely because it isn’t valuable. A subscription to something like The Economist, beats anything the average person wants to compare it to. Or those one-man progressive outlets on YouTube, who went to community college and left with a degree, run their gig out of a one bedroom studio, and think they’ve got the entire world figured out.
The economist should arguably free given the ideological heavy lifting it performs.
I found this interesting: https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-98-the-refined-sociopathy-of-the-economist-4966767e1688
Yeah, I’m aware of its history and biases.
Nothing should be really uncritically and without a skeptical eye. But to suggest it isn’t informative despite its ideological leanings, when you can directly compare it to examples that are ideological trash, is stretching things. There’s no such thing as an unbiased point of view, but there are less prejudiced points of view.
This has the added benefit of holding the news organizations accountable to you, as you’re their main source of funding. If they start to go down a bad path, you can pack up and take your dollars somewhere else.