Linked by David Adams on Fri 19th Mar 2010 21:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 414336
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
1997-10-01
And the advertisers are addicted to that tracking. It's what makes online advertising so much better than print or TV advertising. I think there's some room for everyone to get what they want. Readers could get privacy and not be visually assaulted and advertisers could target their ads to the people who should see them and get the word out. It would take some technological innovation, and some way for readers to push back constructively. But I think it could happen, unless the current situation proceeds on its current path, ending up with the ignorant seeing all the ads, the savvy blocking them, publishers squeezed for revenue, and quality advertisers seeing a spiral of poor performance while scammers continue to fleece the idiots.