>>
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-sticks-to-default-do-not-track-settings-in-ie-10-7000002289/>
>A product that hasn't yet been released, but it's nice to see they're looking ahead. Has no effect on what they're doing
now.
>
>>
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Google-Defends-Scanning-EMail-for-Ad-Links/>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDbrX5U75dk>
>An eight-year-old link? And a Microsoft ad? Really?
Why not, it shows how the nature of the beasts hasn't changed much, if at all. They all want to harvest your data to reduce advertising cost and aim the ads better. Feels so good to be a target, eh?
>Here's something a little more recent:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19669/google_heres_the_real_truth_about_microsofts_privacy_claims_about_us>
http://www.technewsdaily.com/3730-microsoft-google-privacy-benefits.html This sums it up: "Web companies survive on ad revenue.". Which is exactly what is wrong with the system, at least in my opinion. No paid service, except perhaps few subscription places, can survive on serving you anything and charging for it, because whenever someone starts one, in a few months there'll be a few dozen more who will offer the same service "for free". Of course, it's not really free, you pay that through the price of everything else, as it includes the advertising cost. But the for-a-fee service is out anyway, because even if you go for it, you still pay everyone's advertising cost through the price of their end product.
Advertising is a parasite, but as long as it shows some effect, we can't get rid of it. It is the main reason why I stopped with TV, radio, newspaper and movies. On the web, it's much simpler - my faithful AdBlock gets rid of the most of it. For the few sites that take care to detect whether I'm filtering their ads out, ctrl+W does it, along with "you're blacklisted now". And I am in the one permille minority, so the ad peddlers really don't care about the likes of me.
