[charcircuit]

>Then just post about your IDE on Elixir forums.

Not all users of Elixir hang out on Elixir forums. There are plenty that spend the majority of their time on the internet elsewhere.

>and I certainly don't want ad companies that are following me on random websites to know that I'm a programmer who is interested in Elixir or any other data about me.

Why not? Systems can become more efficient if they know you better.

[spinningslate]

>Why not? Systems can become more efficient if they know you better.

Because I didn't give them permission. I've no issue with anyone who willingly trades their privacy/digital footprint in return for services.

I don't want to. I will happily pay money for services I want. But, in all practical ways, the choice has been taken from me. It's impossible to have an online life without Google, Facebook, and myriad others hoovering up my every digital footstep.

And before someone says "ad-blockers" - I use them. And I decline cookie consent on every site I visit. It's tiresome, but I do it. Though even that marks me out: a signal in the noise. Even the act of trying to reject the surveillance economy helps that industry segment me.

It's obscene, and something needs done about it.

[Marsymars]

> And I decline cookie consent on every site I visit. It's tiresome, but I do it.

I don't think this is really worthwhile. It's akin to reporting every Google/fb ad as "I don't want to see this/this isn't relevant to me". Easier to just block ads/cookie consents from ever appearing, and set cookies to automatically delete after tab closure.

[RNAlfons]

> Why not? Systems can become more efficient if they know you better.

Not op but I've not clicked a single ad intentionally since Ads exist on the internet. I don't consider them a trusted source for recommendation and why should I? Why should anybody? Ads violate my attention and that's what they're made for. They do not help you find the best product. They want you to find THEIR product. Everybody knows that.

The privacy issues are the dangerous topping here.

[blooalien]

> …"I've not clicked a single ad intentionally since Ads exist on the internet."

You and me both. I actually actively block ads on the Internet except on the very few sites that have earned my trust (https://readthedocs.org/, DuckDuckGo, etc) or sites where the advertising is directly connected to my existing purpose (to buy a thing) such as Amazon, eBay, Humble Bundle, etc. Everywhere else gets the block because they simply can't be trusted anymore.

[charcircuit]

>Not op but I've not clicked a single ad intentionally since Ads exist on the internet.

You are in the minority then. I personally have clicked on ads and have found products that I was interested in.

>I don't consider them a trusted source for recommendation and why should I?

I am not saying you should. Ads just allow people to get the word out about something.

>Ads violate my attention and that's what they're made for.

This is a poor mindset. If you go to a public place are all of the people there violating your attention because you can see and hear them?

[RNAlfons]

> You are in the minority then. I personally have clicked on ads and have found products that I was interested in.

You don't happen to work in the industry? Because I know nobody who clicks on Ads. Maybe some of them do but they don't admit it which says a lot about doing it.

The only people I've ever met who said things like you did work for the advertisement industry since they're the only ones who believe that. They have to.

> I am not saying you should. Ads just allow people to get the word out about something.

How is this a justification for the intrusive, secretive and sometimes even abusive behaviour? There are other ways to "get the word out" out there. Healthy ways.

> This is a poor mindset. If you go to a public place are all of the people there violating your attention because you can see and hear them?

Sure they do if they jump right in front of my face and yell about some product I might be interested because I just came out of a shop and they've been watching me doing it and writing down how I look.

[eingaeKaiy8ujie]

>Why not?

Because it's a privacy risk. Such information can be used to identify me and used against me.

[charcircuit]

>Such information can be used to identify me

Good. We can make things more efficient.

>used against me

How could someone for example knowing you like Elixer use that knowledge against you? It's not a big deal.

[justinclift]

k, so how about if instead of "Elixer" it was specific religious topics? Or other things that have legal measures for/against them in various parts of the world.

[eingaeKaiy8ujie]

Such data can be combined with other bits of information to uniquely identify me on the web. And there may be other facts about me and my online activity that I don't want third parties to associate with my identity.