[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.