Would you be willing to pay a monthly fee of $25 to access and use the worldwide web if search engines, social networks and websites were ad free and did not collect information about you or track your web activity?
February 20, 2023
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Transparency vs Privacy in the US The Current State of Transparency vs Privacy in the US Most Americans* are concerned about their personal ...
-
Introduction A national DNA database would collect data from millions of citizens across the country and store each individual’s genetic s...
-
(Audible, N.D) Who is Edward Snowden and What did he do? Edward Snowden started working for the Central Intelligence Agency in 2006, where...
I would not be willing to pay $25 monthly if it meant the internet were ad free and did not track my activity. I have an ad-blocker installed on my device that stops me from having to deal with ads most of the time. I generally am not bothered by ads I do see unless they are actively blocking me from accessing the site. I am not very concerned about sites monitoring my activity. As part of the exercise for last week, I looked at what information some sites had on me and discovered it was generally wildly inaccurate. The 'targeted ads' Google notes are things I could not care less about. Since ads and web tracking have not bothered me before, I would not pay to get rid of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'd be willing to pay $25 a month for an ad free internet and do not track request. I currently have an ad-blocker and a "do not track" request on google. Maybe if it was $25 per year I'd be more inclined to purchase it.
ReplyDeleteWhile it sounds nice on paper I feel like a paywall would not be popular, and personally I probably wouldnt pay it. If I were to imagine that I do not already use ad blockers for the sake of the exercise, $25 a month on top of a general internet bill is quite expensive, and I'm not sure I could afford it.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age, $25 dollars a month to control my own privacy would be more than incentivizing for me to make sure information about myself stays contained. I think about how much money companies make off selling our data, and why they do it in the first place. It we changed the payer from out data onto ourselves, perhaps we could instill a new environment on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say that I probably would for a lesser amount, but Jake's usage of the word "paywall" gave me a shock of a reminder, and I think now I'd be against it if it was paid for. By doing this, they'd be establishing a pretty classist system where only people who have this discretionary income would get a higher right to privacy than those who can't or don't want to pay for it. By implementing it in the first place, it's revealing that it's possible to do that for everybody, they just choose not to, and putting a high price on it shows that this information is valuable enough to be that expensive, so no, I don't think I would pay for this as a multi-browser wide option.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I personally wouldn't, but the idea is actually very interesting. I could see a system where people can "upgrade" their entire internet experience and would not mind paying the fees, but those who don't want to pay or cannot pay can use the internet for free, knowing that their data was being collected and ads would still appear on websites. Is this unethical and a bit classist? Yes, but I could see it being realistic sometime in the future. We also have to address that the internet is not owned by one particular body or person, meaning its the wild west in terms of regulation. Would different countries also implement these fees? Wen bringing up her concerns about the paywall are very valid, so if this technology were to be developed, I feel the most fair system would be having a free and paid version available.
ReplyDeleteI would not be willing to pay $25 a month for ad free internet. I think that because the internet is so vital to our society I wouldn’t be willing to pay for it, especially if a free version with the same information but with ads were available. A lot of sites allow you to block cookies and you can request that they don’t track you, so I would have a hard time justifying $25 a month.
ReplyDeleteNo, I use adblocker on my computer which would make half of the deal pointless. Being tracked by sites is annoying but if I never see ads the targeting affects me a lot less. If adblock didn't exist I might consider it but 25 a month is a lot for my budget.
ReplyDeletePaying 25$ month seems like a hefty amount. This would depend on how much you use your browser. I don’t think I would be willing to because where my information is being collected and sold, it sometimes helps with advertisements. Some advertisements are nice. I also
ReplyDeletedon’t use my browser all that often, so it is not a worth while investment.
No. I don't mind ads (as long as they aren't extremely disruptive) or having information about me or my web activity tracked. It doesn't bother me that websites can know what my interests are and what I'm inclined to consume. I mostly ignore ads, and honestly I don't know if I've ever clicked on an ad on purpose. But even if there is an ad that interests me, isn't that a good thing? I'm being offered something that I actually want. I also just don't want to spend more money for another subscription on top of all the other things I'm paying for.
ReplyDeleteNo. I wouldn't be willing to pay $25. That is a high amount to pay for a service that should be free and accessible for everyone. I could maybe justify a smaller fee because I am concerned about online tracking and targeted ads, but as others have pointed out there are already steps that can be taken to prevent this. Most adblockers are free and prevent tracking and there are more secure settings and browsers that could be used.
ReplyDeleteI would do this only if it were an upgrade feature, and not required. I ideologically believe that the internet should be free to access and use by anyone who has connection, and that the only large paywall should be the actual internet connection/data/wifi itself. Another question this brings up is that who would the money go to? This would effectively place ownership of the internet under a company or governing body, and I believe that the main appeal of the internet is really how ungoverned it is.
ReplyDelete