[ugqtq]

I don't care about ads, I care about how much you track users to show them.

You say that they are relevant as if that was something to be proud of. You've had to track users across all the internet to be able to show relevant ads, so relevant ads disgust me.

[yoz-y]

Relevant ads existed before internet was even a thing. A lawnmower ad inside a gardening magazine is every bit as relevant as a hyper targeted banner.

[vanadium]

Contextual advertising (what you’re describing above) is a lot less intrusive than hyper targeted advertising.

The former evaluates the context of the content being delivered by the server, while the latter evaluates an encyclopedia’s worth of data (both inferences and known traits) about the user.

[yoz-y]

I agree. Contextual advertising is less intrusive. What I also believe is that it is also very relevant and there is a debate about whether hyper targeted advertising actually drives more sales.

[user17843]

its not about the ads, its about the survaillence infrastructure.

[EGreg]

Exactly this.

People somehow think that if you get rid of ads the surveillance architecture will go away. They say “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” but the converse is not true - you could be paying and STILL the company could be collecting your data, such as ISPs.

We need full end to end encryption and decentralization! Everything should be opt-in by design.