No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Maybe? I think they used to advertise based on the content and expected demographics for the website, which is an alternative method that doesn't require invasive digital fingering.
This is reasonable for a hobbyist publication, it would make sense to buy ad space for a new fishing rod in Bass Fishing Quarterly or whatever. Harder when it's something more generic as "the news", but as a poster above said this is where quality journalism comes in. If millions of people want to read well-written pieces, advertisers are paying to get their products in front of millions of people.
But advertisers want the most bang for the littlest buck and it's easier to buy targeted ads in the attention economy so here we are. I have no issue with the existence of ads in certain places, moreso the whole system built to track every aspect of your waking attention.
Yeah I understand that, but I will never support trading privacy so advertisers can generate more revenue, so I will continue to propose non-invasive alternatives and tell people supporting invasive methods that they are wrong.
This means that the ads will not be personalized and that people will receive ads the do not care for.
There are reasons why the advertising industry has adopted personalized ads and surveillance capitalism, because it is profitable and legal. Not because it is ethical or the right thing to do.
I mean most of the ads I get are meaningless to me despite being personalized, I feel like a lot of people say the same thing, but maybe I am in the minority here.
Either way, I don't think you need to invade peoples privacy to advertise to them, but agree to disagree. You're proposing and supporting a level of capitalism that I find repulsive, profit at all costs, privacy isn't a cost I want to spend.
You are saying 2 conflicting things, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you feel, what matters is what actually happens.
And what actually happens is opt-out personalized ads with digital fingerprinting alongside surveillance capitalism.
Here is a book on the topic.
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism : The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power
I'm not sure what I said is conflicting, and I feel like your statement is trying to minimize the point I am making, but thats ok, I believe we will never come to agreement here because I firmly disagree with the disruption of privacy for the sake of advertisement.
You can say my feelings are meaningless, but as this gets more invasive people will seek ways to opt out, which I believe is meaningful, although you can say and feel whatever you want my friend :).
Thanks for the book rec, I'll look it over!
I think we are in agreement that privacy is paramount.
Where we differ is that you seem to think it's possible to have some form of personalized ads and maintain privacy. While I think modern day ads and especially virtual personalized ads are intended to subvert privacy, while simultaneously also creating a lot of profit for some of the most evil companies that exist today like Google, Amazon, and Meta.
This makes ads on the internet simply not ethical at all in my opinion. Which inturn means ads are not an appropriate solution for funding news or any other website.
I do hope you read the book.
I did not intend to ever say you can have personalized advertisements without invading someone's privacy, I'm not sure what I wrote that you interpreted that way, possibly my discussion about how I feel the current ads are not always relevant?
Either way, I stated that advertisers should utilize the content of the website or the content being viewed as a method to advertise, which does not involve invasions of privacy.
Or maybe it was when I said "you don't need to invade someones privacy to advertise to them"
That is me saying, you can have advertisements that are meant for a specific group, and believe that someone is part of that group based on them visiting a website, without invading their privacy.
Its how newspapers did advertisements, its why magazines existed - to sell ad space for specific interest groups. People also give away data by signing up for websites, interest groups, or ordering things, all data that can be harvested without entering my computer or invading my privacy.