This sounds too complicated. Can't we just legislate Zuckerberg into decency?
It is ridiculously complicated, yes. They don't seem to be offering a paid version in lieu of the adware, but that's probably just realistic.
The sites themselves don't see any of this money, right? So it's solving a problem that doesn't exist (for me). I don't care all that much about tracking, and if I did, I could stop it without being shown ads. I don't like it, but it's, like, 10th on my list of issues with internet advertising. My problem is how to support sites I like without being subjected to shitty advertising/coding practices and browsing without being bombarded with malware.
I have linked to Brave on here before:
It's longterm existence is contingent on believing, against all evidence, that people will be fine voluntarily converting to micropayments for accessing internet content, but until it folds it is a really well engineered browser that blocks ads and trackers.
The money the advertisers are presumably paying.
6: Cliqz gets a commission for successful ads. Whether Cliqz's clients ("partners" in their parlance) are ad networks or the actual advertisers (what you mean by "the sites"?) I don't know, but I assume the latter. If your concern is sites that get revenue from hosting ads unrelated to their own content, then no, Cliqz doesn't do anything for them.
. If your concern is sites that get revenue from hosting ads unrelated to their own content
Yes, exactly. Why would I care about Cliqz and their clients?
I presume also, though I may be wrong, that this wouldn't address the issue of sites that block or otherwise hassle users using adblockers. How exactly are the ads delivered? In the places on the page where existing ads would be, or in a designated part of the browser window?
8: Good questions. I've no idea. They are clearly trying to solve a problem for search engines and browser makers, not users.
The local paper keeps demanding I whitelist them on adblocker before they'll let me see their news stories. I don't have adblocker installed so far as I know.
10. If you use duckduckgo, some sites that demand whitelisting seem to interpret it as an adblocker. I haven't found a getround yet, mainly because I haven't yet been sufficiently bothered about accessing their content.
I was just using Firefox and a bookmarked link.
||
Some really weird shit going down in KSA right now, maybe an attempted coup.
|>
Nobody I ever heard of is saying anything. All I know is that if it's a coup, I'm not behind it.
Supposedly they shot down a small drone that went through a checkpoint.
I can't help thinking "R2D2" but apparently this one was flying.
In Lego StarWars, R2D2 can fly. Can't gain any elevation, but it can hold altitude across a reasonably long gap.
Somebody broke Hulu. I blame coup plotters.
Supposedly they shot down a small drone that went through a checkpoint.
Why, one asks, did they not use a war eagle?
Not even on the news sites any more. (Which doesn't mean nothing happening.)
An eagle would never stoop so low.