[huggyface]

Is reality really a "position"?

Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons).

Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value. If you don't want to provide advertiser value, partake of micropayments or some other mechanisms. As someone who would make use of those alternate payment mechanisms, I would welcome that.

[MatthewPhillips]

> Is reality really a "position"?

Both of the wordings you provided are positions. The first contained no context and the second is opinionated.

> Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons).

Personally I think tracking should be opt-in (by law) and that websites should have to adjust accordingly (whether that be putting up a pay-wall, finding an alternative revenue stream, making less revenue, or going out of business).

> Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value.

Contracts which potentially do harm upon a person should never be implicit. Knowledge of cookies should not be a requirement for internet use. All contracts should be explicit, and agree upon by both parties.

[huggyface]

the second is opinionated

It is a statement of reality. Choices can have consequences, and giving someone a choice with the implied notion that it is all win -- ignoring the very real consequences -- is a profound lie. The sophistry, and intense myopia around this conversation pushes such limits of intellectual dishonesty that I have to wonder what the agendas really are.

Just to be clear, my position is that the world would be a much better world minus all advertisements (television, the web, print, etc). I believe in direct compensation, micropayments, and all of that. But a lot of people think they can have their cake and eat it too, yet they can't.

[MatthewPhillips]

I think you are misinterpreting people's objection to tracking. It's not that we don't want Google to make money, it's that we don't want our privacy violated. And if Google's business model is to violate people's privacy; that's an invalid business model. Period.

And just to be clear, the internet existed before tracking was widespread, your predictions on what it will be like without it are speculative.

[natrius]

"And if Google's business model is to violate people's privacy; that's an invalid business model."

I don't think internet advertising violates users' privacy to a significant degree. If there was (or when there is) an easy way to price bits of personal information and accept payment for web products via cash or information, most people would give up the information required to keep the site free. Being able to control one's personal information in a manner that makes the side-effects clear is the ideal situation. The IE 10 situation will lead to fewer free products, which isn't a trade-off that most people would consciously make.