[avaer]

Except this didn't need to be a thing at all. Nobody wants ads.

You could have no interruptions, no consent popups, and no tracking, just don't have ads.

Trying to find logic or middle ground on this issue will never make sense, because the ad cartel is based on absurd fiction: that ads are good for people, rather than just being stochastic predation on the fraction who are not successfully able to turn off the malware.

So we arrive at the absurdity that the onus is on the users to defend themselves against the product, and how to present the options to them, so that a sufficient proportion of the prey doesn't do it.

[cwillu]

Hell, you can have the damn ad without any tracking, and you still wouldn't need the popup.

[hdgvhicv]

Ronseal’s quick drying woodstain. Does exactly what it says on tin. Ronseal didn’t track me when they advertised it to me in the 90s, but the advert still existed and worked. Same with richer smoother Nescafé gold blend. the ambassador constantly spoils use with Ferraro Roche, and I can always get a great deal on car insurance if I compare the meerkat.

These adverts worked, and had no tracking.

[mrweasel]

Exactly, I really question how much value personalized ads provide over contextual ones.

It's very hard to track or provide an experiment for, but right now companies seems to be accepting the "Trust me bro" from the large advertising companies.

[Terr_]

> how much value personalized ads provide

I think it's important we break this question apart by "value to whom."

1. Consumers barely notice ads for things they don't care about.

2. Sellers will see it as percentage inefficiency in their spending, wrapped up in other reporting noise.

3. Ad-networks on the other hand, may view a not-interested impression as a lost chance to make revenue by putting something "better" in its place.

[cwillu]

Alas, they don't view their methods through the lens of the impressions they lose by pressuring people into developing and using adblockers