Then what are you talking about? I didn't downvote your post, but probably like people who did, I have trouble understanding your point. Everyone online - privileged and underprivileged alike - is under omnipresent surveillance of countless actors. Until very recently this was completely unregulated. Information about our behavior, interests, opinions, relations, health, anxieties and dumb shit we post in moments of confusion, is gathered, sold, recombined and resold. The rich and powerful are doing it in hope of gaining ability to predict and change our behavior - i.e. gain more power over us. So just because you are more privileged then some, you should not care? Or not appreciate that something good, even if small and insufficient, happened about this awful situation?
tad_lispy
joined 2 years ago
It's not about advertising. It's about spying on our online lives. Not the same thing.
Is this coming from Wired magazine, aka the press organ of silicon valley? Big wows.
If we are talking about American adults, I guess they might be right.
Advertising predates tracking by millennia. We can have online advertising without tracking, and certainly without this orgy of sharing data between 4353 partners. But market alone won't get us there, because whoever offers advertising without tracking and selling data will be at a huge disadvantage compared to the crooks who sell. Only regulatory action can help. So this small step should be celebrated.