[simion314]

If you have a webpage with text and iamges, no user accounts and subscriptions then why you prefer to block the users then load the page without tracking, and show some static ads,better then nothing.

Showing a popup with things like -we have Google analytics that track you in this way -we have FB scripts that do this -we have ad company X script that tracks this -we have Y product that tracks your focus .... would also be good,then I know what "I lost" not getting access to that page

[mseebach]

No, it's not better than nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing. Which is why they're not doing that.

It's extremely difficult for classic news media to make money in the internet-world. They're not tracking you because they hate privacy, they're tracking you because they need to show you ads to earn a few cents to pay for their newsroom.

[admax88q]

> They're not tracking you because they hate privacy

They're tracking you because they're indifferent to your privacy, and they can make money by violating it.

The writing has been on the walls for a while ever since ad blockers took off.

Media companies that are still trying to make money by selling their users are deprecated.

[simion314]

Many people are using ad blockers and this number is increasing, the tracking business model is doomed with or without GDPR.

Are we sure that targeted ads are better then topic ads or is this a myth created by some big companies.

[dmitriid]

No. They are tracking you because they are entirely oblivious to privacy and to the stuff they run on their websites.

A lot of those links and trackers and what-nots come from affiliate networks, or because some marketing manager said it would be better that way. And now they are suddenly alerted to the fact that they run 30+ trackers on their sites, and believe you me they have very vague idea about what those trackers are doing.