| ▲ | no-name-here 21 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
Wouldn't the likely effects of this be to: 1. Push even more of the internet within walled gardens like Meta and YouTube, where they don't have to rely on 3rd party cookies in order to show relevant ads 2. Push more of the web, including journalism, behind paywalls 3. Cause a lot of the existing free (ad supported) web to be taken down 4. For existing free/ad-supported sites, an even larger quantity of ads per page/time would be needed to continue running? ? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wolvoleo 16 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
1) No. This has been covered. Google for example is already not allowed to correlate data between their services, they must ask for permission. This is why there's an extra popup on YouTube for me asking for permission to use data from search etc (which the click to consent plugin automatically dismisses and denies) 2) That's happening anyway. And not just in the EU. And most users don't pay anyhow. The media world is just in a shrinkage phase anyway. We don't need 4 newspapers in every city anymore. A lot of this is just leftovers from an old system that is no longer functional. I see more global news sources now. For example I often read the guardian website these days despite not being in Britain, but because its values tend to align with me and their reporting is fairly good. In the 90s I'd never have considered reading a foreign paper regularly especially from a random city like Manchester. I would just pick one from the local options. Even my own 100k population city had its own paper. These days that is just silly. 3) This is probably what they're afraid of but for me it would be a good thing. Less incentive for clickbait sites, much easier to find real info. 4) Thus more users will use adblock. Not a bad thing either. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||