←back to thread

583 points SweetSoftPillow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.45669258[source]
The single most powerful lobby, by far, to the point that it is essentially the only lobby, is the enormous mass of people who refuse to pay money for content. Absolutely refuse.

Even when you give them the option to pay, with no ads or tracking, the conversion rate is still around 0.5-1%.

replies(5): >>45669482 #>>45669571 #>>45670724 #>>45671157 #>>45675780 #
1. babypuncher ◴[] No.45675780[source]
I think this is a pricing and billing problem more than a "people only want free shit" problem.

All the paywalled news agencies want a monthly subscription. But I, as someone who doesn't like getting all their news from a single source, am not interested in signing up for news subscriptions because the cost would pile up fast, and to be honest I don't read that many news articles in a given month.

I think we need some kind of usage based billing system where participating outlets can set a price per article, and users can agree to be billed for that article when they go to view it.