> For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads.
The internet I want is one with sites run by individuals doing it because they are passionate about certain topics, NOT because it can be profitable when you slap ads on it. Today, the former has a hard time gaining visibility because the latter has much more incentive to make sure you land on their content farm before other sites. Many people don't even know that the former exist. But that doesn't mean that we need the latter. The internet does NOT depend on ads.
> Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here
And Somalia runs on piracy so we need to make sure piracy remains possible? Fuck no. Those sites run on ads because that's currently the path of least resistance. They have alternatives.
> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.
And for a lot of sites, that's OK. There will be replacements.
> If all those sites disappeared
They won't (at least not without replacement) as long as people have a use for the content they provide.
> I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here.
Are you perhaps interested in buying a bridge?
> Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.
Anything that supports ads is decidedly bad. Slightly less bad is still bad.
> means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.
Nope.
> Apple on the other hand
is irrelevant. I can avoid apple devices but there is only one Internet.
The internet I want is one with sites run by individuals doing it because they are passionate about certain topics, NOT because it can be profitable when you slap ads on it. Today, the former has a hard time gaining visibility because the latter has much more incentive to make sure you land on their content farm before other sites. Many people don't even know that the former exist. But that doesn't mean that we need the latter. The internet does NOT depend on ads.
> Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here
And Somalia runs on piracy so we need to make sure piracy remains possible? Fuck no. Those sites run on ads because that's currently the path of least resistance. They have alternatives.
> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.
And for a lot of sites, that's OK. There will be replacements.
> If all those sites disappeared
They won't (at least not without replacement) as long as people have a use for the content they provide.
> I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here.
Are you perhaps interested in buying a bridge?
> Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.
Anything that supports ads is decidedly bad. Slightly less bad is still bad.
> means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.
Nope.
> Apple on the other hand
is irrelevant. I can avoid apple devices but there is only one Internet.