![]() The problem with this argument is that visitors are never given the explicit choice to make that informed decision. ![]() So, in essence, there is an “implied contract” between consumers of a site and those providing the free content: web site visitors get access to the content in exchange for being subjected to ads and providing private information through tracking their use of the site. If not for advertising, people would have to pay for the content through subscriptions. In the debate about the role of advertising, advocates have argued that it enables the supply of free content. The fallacy of the implied contract of ads for content They simply want a total victory over online advertising. Ghostery may have had laudable ambitions for an honest dialogue about ad tracking and ad quality, but it isn’t a conversation that the general public is interested in having. ![]() Nobody is going to spend any time worrying about whether they should unblock particular ads. Ad blockers could render all ads obsolete, regardless of their perceived quality. The argument that this is all about bad vs good ads is also clearly not an issue any more. So it really doesn’t matter whether web sites see this as the only way that they can find to provide free content. Setting aside the arguments for or against online advertising, one thing is absolutely clear: the public do not want advertising to be part of their web browsing experience. Since Peace has capitulated, another ad blocker, Crystal has taken the vanguard as the most downloaded paid app on iTunes. Ghostery advocated for users of ad blockers to be “empowered” to decide for themselves what ads and trackers to block rather than the preemptive blocking that had been implemented in the initial version of Peace.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |