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.

▲

no-name-here 12 hours ago | parent [-]

1) Is the argument that if Google can “only” target based on something like all of your YouTube history, that doesn't let them target with relevant ads to you? Although I think something like Facebook or IG etc are the stronger examples.

2) A lot of places no longer have any local news at all - even the big city newspapers are scaling back their local beat coverage. Is the argument that revenue is unrelated to whether newspapers can continue to support quality journalism?

3) Maybe that's a new thing? But I remember the web back in the early years when everything wasn't paywalled behind walled gardens.

4) If more users are using adblock, how do you expect websites to continue to support themselves - the vast majority of sites you click on will prompt you for payment to view their content?

	▲	wolvoleo 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		1) No, but the tracking needed for targeted ads is also behind a consent wall. I'm just saying that just because other services are also owned by Google, they can not use that data for ads in youtube without permission. 2) I think there is just less revenue available for quality journalism, but that it doesn't really matter because the reach is so much greater. Sites can specialise in topics, not in localities. Like I said that's how I ended up reading the Guardian. I even paid them for a while but the amount they want for adfree is too expensive for me so I just view it with adblockers again. It was 6 euro a month for a while which was ok but now it's 12. Prices keep going up and we get ever less. Some sites now demand money in return for 'fewer' ads, like The Verge! That's pure enshittification. 3) Yeah that's my point. Websites were always doing fine. Even with untracked ads in the past. I don't understand why everything is suddenly so critical. They were able to survive for 20-30 years without having to enshittify. Why now? 4) I don't really know (nor care). I'm definitely not going to pay every site I come across, that's obvious. I'm not going to watch ads either. But I never have for the last 20 years and it's never stopped them before. It's not like adblocking is a new thing, people have been doing it for decades and probably higher numbers than today (considering how difficult it is on mobile). Paywalls are kinda new but most people avoid those too. I think there are just going to be a lot less sites around which is not a bad thing at all to me.