It's worse: I would say every group is malicious. Ad companies try to look like they are policing themselves, in the hopes that they don't suffer external regulation. But back when AdBlock Plus started this nonsense, people made uBlock Origin in response. People wouldn't just take the ad industry at its word.
Now... For some reason, people have changed their minds.
There's actually a whole group called the Acceptable Ads Committee who decides on making advertisements distinct and unintrusive... But they don't have any policies regarding privacy invasion.
They also partner with popular ad blocking software developers, such as AdBlock Plus.
They also have eight members, via their other name "eyeo", on the W3C PATCG committee (alongside Mozilla, Facebook, Google, more ad companies).
Let's say there's a table, and sitting at it are nine companies that want to wring every penny out of consumers by any means necessary. Mozilla sits at the table.
How many horrid companies are there at the table now?
Theres a massive difference between advocating for something bu havinf some power and influence, and doing so with the power of a monopoly.
And what a table it is.
I have no idea where you got this idea I'm advocating for an adtech monopoly.
You continue to put words in my mouth
You are the one who began demanding an argument about Anonym
This was a bizarre thing to read, because I never brought up Anonym, never even mentioned them.
You brought them up. Right here.
It's strange that you would accuse me, or anyone else, of arguing against something you brought up yourself. WTF
How did you get an endorsement for adtech industry lobbying out of my other comments?
how would my comments insinuate that I want them to create a monopoly?
Having enough political power to exert control over an industry is monopoly control in my book. Not yours?
I'd rather Ads not exist. I'd rather tracking not exist. But...
Ads and tracking. Hmm.
I hate to see "but" after a statement like that.
Mozilla planting a flag on that hill only means they go extinct unless the political, legal, or economic environment of our society changes.
WTF? Up until recently, they did plant their flag on that hill. Mozilla fight tracking. They blocked it. And you know what? Unlike you, I'm willing to take the stand that they did the right thing there.
And I have no idea why you would say that their decision to do that for years up until 2022 was a bad thing.
While you repeatedly insist (without basis) that services must use ads to exist, let me remind you: you are on Lemmy.
Google is one of the largest members of the Private Advertising Technology Community Group, which allegedly seeks to replace traditional advertisement tracking with new, more private advertisement tracking. (Other members include Facebook, many ad corporations, and an unfortunate name you my recognize.)
If you have heard of Topics, FLoC, "Privacy" Sandbox, etc, those proposals are all closely linked to this group.
The W3C ~~launders and legitimizes~~ sponsors this commission, so these may become canonical web standards in the very near future.
I've talked to a few people who have insisted that the standards established by this committee should be mandatory... Not on the web level, but on a government level.
My entire post was about recognizing trends, catching bad behavior before it's too late, and did not having a corporate heroes. I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote so differently.
Basically. Insultingly, it was built alongside, and in some collaborative measure with, Google. (A bunch of companies bigger than Mozilla, and a bunch of ad networks, are all teaming up for the PATCG).
Don't let your bias color your opinion.
In another comment, you endorsed the AdTech industry lobbying to create an advertisement monopoly. Charitably interpreted, you could only have meant one of two things:
But since you don't seem to be very pro Google, I believe it's the former... And based on Mozilla providing nothing more substantial than any other company engaged in the incestuous and corporate PATCG, it sure does seem you are the one engaging while wearing rose tinted glasses.
I can't believe I need to explain this (and I kind of already have), but you should never put any corporation on a pedestal just because they are proffering the second worst option instead of the very worst.
Ad companies do and will continue dictating legislation in the US
And we shouldn't normalize it.
Normally, I would mention Facebook driving the way Firefox ads function, but you seem to have no issue with Facebook or even Google being in an incestuous relationship to various degrees with Mozilla, I guess that's not even a point you'll care about.
All this mozilla hate just further divides the people wanting something better.
People say this about Mr. Beast and his repulsive children's snacks and chocolate bars, which he says are a healthy alternative to the very worst options. Or Elon Musk and his electric atrocities. I would be aghast if the government handed monopoly political power over to either of those people.
And yet here you are, insinuating the government should legislate monopoly power over advertisements and simply hand the reigns over to the corporate interests that want to maximize profits at any cost.
I wasn't going to make a generic comment about how cryptocurrency is only worth money to people if they can convince other people to also purchase the cryptocurrency...
... But then I looked at your post history, and it's like a week of pivoting conversations to be about Monero.
Edit: oh god it was worse than I thought
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(probably more, but mods removed many)