> I don't have a solution for the less-technical folks right now. The best I can do is encourage people
They suggested regulation as is done in Europe. Perhaps that's worthy of consideration since hope and power users aren't stopping this problem
They suggested regulation as is done in Europe. Perhaps that's worthy of consideration since hope and power users aren't stopping this problem
The problem we're facing is that adtech is a multibillion dollar industry with the will and means to actively research and develop new and exciting ways to bypass legislation.
I can't control the legislation beyond who I vote for, and none of the voting options I'm given seem aware of how the internet works, so I am left with the avenue of "Angrily tell people on the internet to stop doing that" and try to encourage attrition as much as I can.
It cant for existing profitable business models. You couldnt ban the google owned nuclear SLBM fleet if it already existed and represent the most profitable sector of the economy. Inertia exists and the more profitable the topics the harder it is to break from a central position. It would be economic suicide on a national level.
You would get some paper tiger checks and balances entrenching googles nuclear fleet monopoly.
Of course we can ban that. :laughs in EU:
There just isn't the political will behind it like it is on things like ICE cars or nuclear energy, because unlike the latter things, the politicians and voters don't understands it well enough to be outraged about it.
edit: Saw your nuclear energy edit too late. Thats a great example for protectionism / having a frame for subsidies. We still require energy, that section of the GDP didnt just evaporate.
Car legislation is likewise just a driver for higher consumption.
You would need something equally profitable to do for the sub fleet supply chain to ban it.