Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 127,882

  1. …in reply to @acfou
    acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist Right this is the main thing, few players are interested in a 'more perfect market' in this in any direction. I think the goal is to look at the field and stake out an ideal and aim to move the market on that as a sort of fulcrum.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +5 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist I think it is an absolute fact that users are increasingly concerned with tracking and that we need a future where our users and readers will feel comfortable interacting with the web. On that basis the pure dollars and cents of a market *can't* be the only consideration.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +1 🙂
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist The rest of the web can't afford to burn its user relationships in the same way FB has because we don't have the capital to spare. On a longer term examination of the market, there are factors that impact the survivability of publishers other than bid rates.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets Mood 0
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist So we have to look at what those other factors are & seek to build a future for the web that takes into account all of them. Others (like Google) will argue on their own behalf, but if we're only considering what we can do in comparison to their definitions, that's no future.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +1 🙂
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist To be blunt: if our only answer is 'make it a more perfectly capitalist unregulated market' the winners there will always be the largest players because that's how perfectly capitalist markets work. Regulation is needed, both in law from governments AND standards from technology.
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood +6 🙂
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist The thing is... *we already have seen this to be the case*. The whole brand safety discussion is a clear indicator that a perfectly capitalist no-regulation market *isn't* what advertisers want. They have considerations other than price optimization, same as publishers and users.
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood +6 🙂
              1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist So, it's not particularly useful to hang on to the status quo IMO, because the status quo *already* doesn't work. And it doesn't have good answers to questions like: 'how does surveillance marketing impact my brand' for advertisers or publishers. Chronotope/1131388719011966976
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +7 🙂
                1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                  acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist We can acknowledge things about the current ad tech regime are worthwhile, but I don't see any good argument that says individualized tracking is one of those things. The argument seems to be 'it makes more money' but that's irrelevant in a future where it doesn't exist...
                  Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +3 🙂
                  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                    acfou Willhew garjoh_canuck pbannist If that future is possible, there are good reasons both inside & outside the walls of the digital ad marketplace, to bring it on. Not least of which is we need to look at this & consider a moral stance & how taking it can be rewarding and ignoring it will eventually be punishing.
                    Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +3 🙂

Search tweets' text