See, if it's hard to get my data, suddenly it becomes more valuable. These organizations try harder and harder to get to it, and really won't stop. And really, once it's out, it's out.
So I'm just gonna make my data worthless. Fuckin everyone can have it what the hell do I care. I was among the first on Facebook when we had no idea what was happening. Phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, bare ass to the world. It's all out there already, no going back in the tube.
I don't see many ads, so who cares if they have a better idea of what to show me. I don't spend frivolously, and don't buy from websites I don't trust, so what even if I do see some more relevant ads. They're ads. I'm not paying attention anyway.
I'm not giving out answers to security questions and I'm using two factor authentication everywhere. My credit is frozen and I've got all the big stuff bought. I'm not really sure what I have to lose here
I just don't feel comfortable having these big companies profiting from my information. If it's that valuable to them, then they should be paying me for it.
CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.
Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.
They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually, and that preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard. Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements.
I don't think USA today or any other outlet should be protected. I do think the reporters that work there should be protected.
Corporations should be held accountable for what they say or "strongly encourage" others to say. Individuals should be protected if they get things wrong, though.
Well you're not forced. You don't actually have to go to their website at all.
They seem to be making the argument that if you want some of their content, you have to accept all of it (ads included). Of course, that's absurd. I can pick up a printed newspaper (if those still exist) and skip right to the comics if I want, and bypass the sports and classifieds entirely if I wish. I can pick up a book or album and only enjoy a single chapter or track. You get the idea.
While I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure the newspaper example supports your position, although it is an apt analogy.
I would imagine that the counter argument would take the form of something like, "Yes, you don't have to read the whole paper, but you can't just buy the comics. You buy the whole paper, get access to the whole thing, and the ads come with it. Similarly, with our web presence, in order to access everything, whether you choose to consume it all or not, the ads must come as a part of it."
Personally, I don't fully agree with either that argument or yours, can see the merits and flaws of both, and fall somewhere in the middle.
I'd argue that while they're within their rights to create, distribute, bundle, and price their content as they see fit, just like the current debate with social media companies, your monitor is your own personal, privately owned platform, and you shouldn't/can't be forced to offer a platform to any content you don't wish to publish (to your audience of one). So you're perfectly within your rights to want and attempt to only view the content you wish to see, while they're also perfectly within their rights to want and attempt to package their content in such a way that links their articles with the advertisements of their sponsors.
So at that point, it's just an arms race between the producer doing their best to force ads onto screens and consumers doing their best to avoid same. Neither side is morally right or wrong, and while there likely is a middle ground that wild be acceptable to both parties, there's zero good faith between the two sides which would be necessary to establish that middle ground.
I don’t think they’re arguing that the ads are part of the free speech, I think they’re arguing the ads are a revenue source that allows them to fund free speech. Blocking ads in this case is more akin to sitting down at the newsstand for two hours while you read the paper, then putting the paper back without having paid for anything. Yes online advertising has become a massive breach of privacy, but they have no obligation to give away their product for free, and looking at ads is how you pay for it.
What gets me about them (and any other sites really) saying that is there are safer ways in showing ads and that’s just hosting them from their domain instead of selling page space to random ad buyers.
Guess that’s too much trouble and not enough profit for these corporations.
Absolutely. I have no problem displaying a few ads with my content if it results in better content. If it’s done responsibly, which it never is. Instead, it’s always an abusive relationship.
But they're people! Well, only in that one instance and not in any others that would allow punishments levied against people to be applied to businesses.
Like, if I sold poison that killed millions of people every year, I'd get the death penalty.
Didn't you know? Disabling ad blockers ensures free speech and apparently may also peacefully end the current crisis in the middle east... oh, did I mention it helps with world hunger too?
