Consent to what exactly? Businesses have to collect some data to provide individualized service. Is it reselling the data? Then there’s a question of who owns the data. I think there’s a fair presumption that when you go to a web server and type data in and submit it, you are literally giving your data.
Well for instance, when I navigate to CNN to read national headlines let’s say, I know they do not need to insert advertising trackers on my computer without my knowledge or consent in order to provide the service I through I was seeking when I went to the site. As far as who “owns” my data, is say that placing anything persistent on my computer without my knowledge or consent is a pretty clear and fair dividing line that one could argue shouldn’t be crossed. It will be interesting when Apple surfaces this choice for consumers to make. I have a feeling that both advertisers, myself, and you know how it will turn out :)
But that’s how HTTP works. You click a link, and a server that receives your request sends HTML and JavaScript and CSS and images and who knows what else right on your hard drive. It is persistent until you clear the cache.placing anything persistent on my computer without my knowledge or consent is a pretty clear and fair dividing line that one could argue shouldn’t be crossed
CNN is not a charity, to provide the service you demand they incur costs. Of course there are a variety of models but by far the most popular by Internet consensus is “free content” whatever the consequences. It’s been interesting since I set up Pi-Hole. I used to think of ads as a kind of tax on browsing. Annoying and inevitable like junk mail, and at worst something that would make me spend less time online. But blocking ads made browsing much pleasanter. Everyone should do this ... but I hope they don’t so I can continue to be a free rider. Some sites broke. I learned that family members actually click on the sponsored links in search results, even when the desired link appears just below. Some sites detect the ad blocker and refuse to serve the content, with a polite explanation. Others request that I enable ads, but allow me to dismiss the request without complying. I usually decline any kind of tracking, and would probably use the Apple feature, but I don’t assume I will have a better experience. I’ll just see more random ads and fewer targeted ads.
Oh I totally agree that CNN is not a charity! But what is interesting is that I have ad blockers installed on my browser, and there a number of sites that recognize that, and refuse to load when it detects them unless I turn them off. Which is great, as it means the software I’ve installed to block the non-consensual Software from being loaded onto my hardware is working. And you know what? I’ve never granted permission and loaded an article I was trying to read when the price of admission was allowing it to load software onto my machine. When consent exists and the choices are surfaced for the participants, different permissions manifest I think.
It sounds like you have found a good balance. You learned about the tech, you made an effort to install ad blocking, and now things are better. That time and effort is a cost not everyone wants to make when they could be looking at more cat photos. I asked around the house a week after Pi-Hole and nobody had noticed the change. I live with people who will watch a video with a banner covering the bottom quarter of the picture. Pity them if you will, but the bottom line is people who are tolerant of ads make CNN free for all of us. It’s cool that Apple is experimenting with this feature, though they are also in the game. Usually the solution is to demand legislation to fix the problem, and we end up with the same internet but we have to accept cookies fifty times a day.