[naIak]

The choice citizens would make every single time is to see the website without ads. Of course, publishers aren’t happy about that, since they would have to close shop. Maybe the EC should consider both sides of the equation.

[mkmk3]

False dichotomy, just advertise based on the content of the site without spying on people

[ApolloFortyNine]

Untargeted pay less than 90% of targeted ones generally. And there's not a lot of companies that can handle a 90% drop in revenue.

The real solution would be to make users pay for the content, but charging for something that users used to get for "free" is also essentially impossible.

[naIak]

Loaded language, it can’t be “spying” if the user consents.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Ads don't require invasive tracking. They work in print, radio, television, and 90s web without tracking.

[debugnik]

Advertising has existed for centuries, I'm sure it can survive as an industry without requiring invasive tracking.

[troupo]

> Maybe the EC should consider both sides of the equation.

They literally did. With GDPR. The poor struggling advertisers came up with the cookie banners they blamed on the EU.

Oh no, cried the publishers. How can we ever live without storing all of user data for a decade or more? https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541

[bsimpson]

I make six figures, have read The Verge almost every day since it launched, and I have not yet bought a membership to pass their new paywall.

The internet made information a commodity, and how we collectively pay for that information is still an open question 3 decades in.

It's easy to say people want content "without ads," but there are also plenty who don't want to buy a membership to every single provider either.