Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluesign | Hacker News Reader

I think tracking-free and ad-free are different concerns here. Basically you can offer ad-free for $X/month, but tracking consent should be separate ( basically anyone would be able to deny tracking )

Same issue on the Apple side will play out probably similar; either they can charge every developer some technology fee, or they cannot charge to anyone.

View on HN

> I think tracking-free and ad-free are different concerns here

Maybe in theory, but in practice they are one and the same. The CPM on ads where you don't know the audience is so low that you might as well skip the ads entirely.

> Same issue on the Apple side will play out probably similar; either they can charge every developer some technology fee, or they cannot charge to anyone.

Yes, and the result for both will be that there is no free tier in the EU anymore. All EU developers will pay the CTF and all EU users will pay $10/month for for ad-free FB.

> Yes, and the result for both will be that there is no free tier in the EU anymore. All EU developers will pay the CTF and all EU users will pay $10/month for for ad-free FB.

And that's a good thing! If people really get value out of Facebook, they'll pay for it. If Facebook cannot deliver value without invading their users privacy and selling their data, maybe their business premise was flawed in the first place. Is it so alien to accept that the era of "free" online services might end after all?

Regarding the CTF specifically: I don't think Apple will get away with this after all, but we'll see.

I think as long as they don't discriminate, they can get away with it. But will they choose to go this way is another question.

I know you’re not the person to ask about this. Just asking out of curiosity and frustration: Why do advertisers think that they are entitled to everything about my life, family, habits, and other private information? Being able to collect and correlate data from various resources to identify everything about me doesn’t change the fact that I am entitled to my own privacy.

"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs."

– Banksy

> Maybe in theory, but in practice they are one and the same. The CPM on ads where you don't know the audience is so low that you might as well skip the ads entirely.

Your case only valid with "zero consent" case. This is proved with Apple's tracking protection for apps already; given that you have some x% of users consenting to tracking, CPM value for non-tracking users are within 85-95% range.

> The CPM on ads where you don't know the audience

Contextual Advertising is also a thing, see CarbonAds and others

Reply on news.ycombinator.com