[xg15]

> pay for free services

If you pay for it, it's not a free service, so which is it? The whole model hinges on the fact that no kind of payment is advertised, not ads and especially not tracking. (If the GDPR prompts are good for anything then at least for making this bit more obvious)

If you treat this as payment, wouldn't you require an actual business relationship with those users?

Also by that logic, Google just unilaterally altered the contract without even so much as notifying its users about it (thanks to hidden, seamless auto-updates of Chrome)

In which other segment would you tolerate stuff like this as a customer?

[nindalf]

Don’t pretend like you don’t know what ad-supported means.

I’ll explain it with a hypothetical example. Imagine a website called “Hacker News” where it is free to post and read and in exchange you see a few ads. Don’t now say that this HN website actually costs you something to use.

[rpastuszak]

> Don’t now say that this HN website actually costs you something to use.

It costs my attention. I would be happy to support the platform itself without any middlemen.

Saying that as someone who also worked in ad tech.