←back to thread

582 points SweetSoftPillow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
rustc ◴[] No.45668037[source]
Or just ban this kind of data collection. Is there any reason anyone would willingly click "Accept" when a website asks to share your data with 500+ partner sites?
replies(10): >>45668108 #>>45668122 #>>45668260 #>>45668263 #>>45668342 #>>45668470 #>>45668532 #>>45668715 #>>45673000 #>>45675491 #
regentbowerbird ◴[] No.45668342[source]
The same could be said with all advertising and surveillance.

No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP.

No one wants to be spied on, but powerful lobbies argue tracking people allow better security; and no politician wants to be soft on crime and terrorism.

replies(3): >>45668481 #>>45669258 #>>45669561 #
phkahler ◴[] No.45668481[source]
>> No one wants to be advertised to, but powerful lobbies argue that ending ads will lower consumption and thus harm the economy; and no politician wants to lower GDP.

I doubt that. People tend to spend their money regardless. Advertising just determines what they spend it on.

replies(4): >>45668697 #>>45669051 #>>45669150 #>>45669459 #
1. regentbowerbird ◴[] No.45669459[source]
Our culture values the act of buying things for social status (consumerism), and one of the main reasons for that is advertising.

You're assuming people would still have the same amount of money, but for most money is not a given, and people strive to earn money precisely because they want to buy the things they were advertised.

Without the social pressure to acquire things one doesn't need, it's very possible people might simply work less and use that time for other things.