[rootusrootus]

But we've built a world where a large fraction of the population has [apparently] willingly traded their privacy for free product. I completely support making this trade transparent, so people can make an explicit choice, but what's the justification in making it one-sided and requiring companies to provide their service for free?

[ratww]

But is there any company that survives solely by collecting and trafficking personal data? Facebook and Google don't count, they make money selling ads.

If there is such a company I'm completely ok with them not being viable anymore.

[guitarbill]

i guess we'll find out if they really are willing, given a proper choice, and not just forced to click "accept" like in some perverse skinner box.

i don't know where all the misinformation comes from, but companies don't need to provide their services for free. they can still show ads - just untargeted ones. or is ads = tracking nowadays?

[Aunche]

>forced to click "accept" like in some perverse skinner box.

Or you can just leave the website. It's not like you lose anything by not going to techcrunch, let alone lose your job or anything serious.

Targeted ads make the website a lot more money.

[vertex-four]

They can even show ads that are related to the content on the web page! Are you on a page that is about breeds of dogs you might want to adopt? Why not buy a Halti collar, and a package of dog training sessions, and donate to the RSPCA?

This is what Google's advertising product started out as, basically automated magazine advertising at scale; it turned into this perverse tracking system once everyone was hooked onto free web content and nobody could get away from it.