[xp84]

Are you saying first-party analytics of any kind are evil? Users have the right to not use the site, which is the only way users are going to leave no traces.

I think you have the right to track the usage of your product. And if you are ad-supported and not a sole proprietorship, you have an obligation to your business to at least know whether your monetization strategy is failing due to your users' ad-blocking preferences. The "% who block ads" figure is vitally important in deciding, for instance, whether to offer an ad-free paid tier.

[2h]

Ad blocking is the anti virus of this generation.

If someone is using ad blocking, especially with custom rules, they are saying, loud and clear, they DON'T WANT most JavaScript running.

web developers should just respect that and move on, not try everything the browser allows in order to ram it down their throats. Theres really no excuse for it. with browsers essentially acting as operating systems these days, you're basically trying to justify malware.

[paulryanrogers]

Respect user's taking without giving anything in return?

IMO if users block ads then I imagine the websites are well within their rights to deny service or ask for other forms of payment.

[alex_lav]

> Respect user's taking without giving anything in return?

Don't make something appear to be free, and then try and swindle someone down the road. Ask for money or don't. Painting a user going to an unsecured site as "taking without giving" is disingenuous. If the website is open to all, it is free, and there is no expectation of payment.

> IMO if users block ads then I imagine the websites are well within their rights to deny service or ask for other forms of payment.

If a site expects to be paid, make it a paid site. Block me from entering. If not, it's free, and don't put ads on it. If you want to appear free but try to force me to receive content I didn't request, I will block it. Simple as.

[paulryanrogers]

It's not swindling to be paid for by ads. Broadcast radio and TV have worked that way for half a century.

Creators and hosts are paying for the resources to serve to the public. They can block the blockers if they wish.

Making things only paywall-ed or entirely free will just lead to more 'native' ads disguised as content and less content available to the unbanked and less affluent.

[alex_lav]

> It's not swindling to be paid for by ads. Broadcast radio and TV have worked that way for half a century.

And I'm free to turn the volume down on my TV or radio when the ads come on. They don't attempt to block me from doing this.

> Creators and hosts are paying for the resources to serve to the public. They can block the blockers if they wish.

You seem to have forgotten what we're discussing, so I'll quote it again

> Respect user's taking without giving anything in return?

This is what a free site suggests, and is not immoral. I am allowed to control the content on my machine, so I'll block the content that makes it to my screen as I see fit. If a website doesn't like this, they're welcome to make their content paid and I'll simply not look at it.

> Making things only paywall-ed or entirely free will just lead to more 'native' ads disguised as content and less content available to the unbanked and less affluent.

If you're saying "You must look at ads or advertising will get worse", I categorically reject both sides of your argument.

[arp242]

In a previous comment you said "Ask for money or don't".

Now you say "they're welcome to make their content paid and I'll simply not look at it".

So people should pay their rent, how?

This reminds me of that YouTube discussion last week were people were up in arms that they might have to pay, and then the very same people were also up in arms that YouTube has ads.

Either come up with a viable alternative or accept one of those two options.

[XCSme]

Agree, first-party tracking is a legitimate business interest. When you interact with a business, you should reasonably expect that they will gather some data, voluntary or not. Even basic stuff of "a user purchased a pair of socks and a birthday card", then they can use the info to improve the user experience, like put those products closer together or offer a bundle discount.

[bobmaxup]

if that was all the normal stores did, that is whatever, but really digital tracking is like if a store took note of my body type, hair style, clothes choices, accent, eye color, fingerprints, how long i took to decide on purchases, what i purchased, my credit card, what other stores i have visited, and general phenotype to build a profile of me as a customer and then asked some oracle about my behavior based on that information (actual or imagined), which that oracle would then use to build larger profiles to further predict my own and others' behavior

[XCSme]

As far as I know, this kind of really in-depth tracking and personalization is only done by the giant companies (think Amazon, Zalando, etc.). I doubt small online shops have the knowledge and manpower to create and use such user profiles.

[pdimitar]

If they stopped there that would be great. But we all know they gather much more info.