| > Which is why there should be a law.
> It's actually outrageous. There's a law to prohibit unsolicited telephone calls. But none for prohibiting companies from invading privacy by tracking online activity without explicit permission? Insane. I think the difference is that you choose which sites to go to. If you dont go to them, you dont get ads, and you're not tracked. I would consider it more like CC TV, or Safeway cards. > I have no tears for ad networks. They need to find a new business model or be fined into bankruptcy. While there has been a lot of scumbaggery by some large advertising networks, I think there is a place for ads. Certainly given I read a lot of content for "free" which is supported by ads. > > [Mozilla] exists to make the web a better place.
> If that were true, Mozilla would be lobbying for a law. Try this: assume mozilla _is_ trying to make the web a better place, and now consider why they aren't lobbying for a law. What I learned at Mozilla is that there are people there who have true vision about the future of the open web, tempered by a nuanced and pragmatic approach to ensuring it. I can't speak for them, but my impression is that destroying the ad industry is bad for the internet as a whole, and so not desirable. |
That's not a difference. You choose to own a phone. You choose to leave your phone on the hook. If you don't own a phone, if you leave your phone off the hook, you won't get unsolicited calls. Further, you don't get to know which sites have ads before you go to them. And finally, a Safeway card doesn't know you walked into a 7-Eleven, or a bookstore, or attended a concert.
I think there is a place for ads.
No argument. Ad networks simply need to find a business model that doesn't depend on breaking a DNT law. It's their responsibility to do so if they elect to sell ads. Privacy should not be involuntarily sacrificed in order to support their business model.
assume mozilla _is_ trying to make the web a better place, and now consider why they aren't lobbying for a law.
OK. Because they lack sufficient intelligence. I doubt that is the case, so I'll revert to my view that Mozilla is not singularly focused on "what's best for the web".
Simply because Mozilla, or you, or I are unable to create a business model for ad networks that is not dependent on invasion of privacy, and simply because ad networks are disinclined to change their existing business model, does not mean a DNT law destroys ads. It is not Mozilla, or mine, or your responsibility to save ad networks that stubbornly refuse or are incapable of identifying a non-invasive business model. But it is Mozilla (the "what's best for the web" Mozilla, anyway) and mine and your responsibilities to oppose businesses and business models that invade privacy.