Comment on How should a news article website financially sustain itself?
leoj@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
I mean isn’t there a world where we have unobtrusive adverts that are for products people actually want, and can sustain the reporting?
I think people would use less ad blockers if the ads were not designed / placed in a way that feels almost seizure inducing at times.
CubitOom@infosec.pub 4 weeks ago
This requires metadata fingerprinting which can be used to deanonymize people. And has been used as justification for intense surveillance of users and aggregation of user data. It is also profitable to see this data to third party data brokers which inturn sell the data collected to other private entities which might have nefarious intent.
Basically, this means that modern advertising on the internet is inherently wrong, even if it’s ads that people might actually like.
leoj@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
Maybe? I think they used to advertise based on the content and expected demographics for the website, which is an alternative method that doesn’t require invasive digital fingering.
jabberwock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
This is reasonable for a hobbyist publication, it would make sense to buy ad space for a new fishing rod in Bass Fishing Quarterly or whatever. Harder when it’s something more generic as “the news”, but as a poster above said this is where quality journalism comes in. If millions of people want to read well-written pieces, advertisers are paying to get their products in front of millions of people.
But advertisers want the most bang for the littlest buck and it’s easier to buy targeted ads in the attention economy so here we are. I have no issue with the existence of ads in certain places, moreso the whole system built to track every aspect of your waking attention.
leoj@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
Yeah I understand that, but I will never support trading privacy so advertisers can generate more revenue, so I will continue to propose non-invasive alternatives and tell people supporting invasive methods that they are wrong.
CubitOom@infosec.pub 4 weeks ago
This means that the ads will not be personalized and that people will receive ads the do not care for.
There are reasons why the advertising industry has adopted personalized ads and surveillance capitalism, because it is profitable and legal. Not because it is ethical or the right thing to do.
leoj@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
I mean most of the ads I get are meaningless to me despite being personalized, I feel like a lot of people say the same thing, but maybe I am in the minority here.
Either way, I don’t think you need to invade peoples privacy to advertise to them, but agree to disagree.