Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

that just shallow and one sided argument that never respect another side of coin


It's also true.

Not every business model is viable, and that's life. I can't run a hitman business. Because that's illegal. Oh well, too bad, so sad. This is what makes the world a somewhat decent place.

If we make things that suck ass illegal and then, as a byproduct, a bunch of businesses can no longer make money - then good. That's the correct outcome. This is how a free market works. You want to win customers? Make a good product, have a good model, don't cheat by lying to customers, or doing shit without their consent.

We don't want scams, scams are bad. If those go away that's a net benefit for humanity.


what do you mean illegal???

tell that to Ads advertising business that bringing billions every year, and its legal btw


Right, and that sucks major fucking ass. It's bad and literally nobody likes it.

If it went away overnight, I would not lose sleep. I don't think I'm alone in that.

If you want to run a business that relies on gathering obscene amounts of data on people and then using it in aggregate to commit crimes against humanity, then fine. But at least make them consent to you fucking them up the ass. I don't think that's too much to ask for.


Nobody like it in the same way that nobody likes paying for groceries or gas. Wouldn't it be great if they were free??

Of course it'd be awesome if the world had no ads, but most people prefer free with ads to paid without ads.


Uh, no, not in the same way. You have absolutely zero proof that you NEED to fuck users up the ass to make the service work.

Many services worked without the ass fucking. We did it for a very long time.

> but most people prefer free with ads to paid without ads.

No, you can't actually say this, because part of the deal is that nobody actually knows HOW or WHAT they are giving up for this free service.

Things like GPDR or consent, again, do not outlaw the actual thing. Ads are still legal, personalized ads are still legal, tracking is still legal. It just forces you to ask consumers. If what you're saying is true, then GPDR is fantastic!! All the users should click 'accept all cookies', because that's what they actually want right?

Unless, wait, you think... maybe that's not what they want? And they're only agreeing to the current situation because they don't know what they're agreeing to? Hmm... what a conundrum!


Okay. So would you prefer to pay a subscription for every site you use or pay with your eyeballs by looking at ads?


this is a false dichotomy. You don't need to track your users to show ads.

Contextual advertising works fine for many sites, especially those with a specific targeted audience (for example a gaming website can show ads for gaming related products).


Imagine if grocery stores had someone standing at the front asking if you'd like to pay for your groceries or opt-out. Of course most people would opt-out, because that's what's best for them individually. But they probably won't love it when the grocery store closes...


That's just very obviously not comparable.

You don't need to collect obscene amounts of data for any of these businesses, and we know that for a fact because that's how we've done for the majority of human history, including a good chunk of the internet.

You do need to sell products at a price that makes up their cost.

Once again, I must repeat. Nobody is making whatever evil ass shit we're building illegal. They're not, it's just not happening. What they ARE doing is saying "be honest to consumers about it".

You want a free market? Think about what the principles are that make up a free market. Consumer choice, switching cost, informed consent. These are the foundations of a free market. If your high school economics teacher didn't make that clear, then they were a bad teacher.

The market works because consumers can figure out what the best product is and choose that, so the best products win. What's the prerequisite to that? Knowing what the product actually is and what you're paying for it.


so you want people cant earn livelihood by your saying?????

for some people and I mean some people in this are entire industry that working with directly and indirectly. this is the only way to earn a living for them and you saying this people cant do that????

"If you want to run a business that relies on gathering obscene amounts of data on people and then using it in aggregate to commit crimes against humanity, then fine. But at least make them consent to you fucking them up the ass. I don't think that's too much to ask for."

well. you are free to choose not to?????? what we even doing here? life its about choice and you are free to not sign up service that scummy

it literally totally difference case that worth another article/post for that


> this is the only way to earn a living for them

Who are those people who literally can't earn a living in any way other than working on personalized ads?


So, so many glaring problems here:

1. Consumers can't just 'not use something' because of network effects, and you know that. Don't play stupid with me.

2. The service is scummy because they lie. That's the scummy part. Sit back and read what I wrote. I'm not saying services CAN'T commit crimes against humanity. They can! I'm saying they must DO IT HONESTLY.

If this is about choice, and you want users to choose what they want, then you have to be on my side. It's not optional. IF what you're saying is true, and consumers have the choice "not sign up service that scummy", THEN they must know if the service is scummy. Necessarily!

You are literally agreeing with me!


You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit

No, the competing solution/alternative its not better

if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already


Which is why shrinkflation always fails right?

In a free market, consumers will pick the better option right? The one where they don't pay more for less?

Right?


> if there are better ways to do this, it would be born already

That's not how it works in capitalism. If there are more profitable ways to do this, then it would have been adopted. But better is subjective - better for whom? For the users? The businesses don't give a fuck about the users, only about their money.


> You are making it like they are doing human crime level hitler or some shit

I mean, yeah, Facebook directly caused a genocide because of their pursuit of ads. Do with that what you will.

But either way, it's like you're pulling every fallacy you can think of out of your ass!

Even if it's not a big deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. That's stupid.

And the idea that 'oh well we don't need to think of solutions, because the magical solution fairy would've already done it' is also stupid.

How do you think stuff gets done? Who's doing it? Us! The conversation we're having is that! It's the "born already" you're talking about!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: