We accepted surveillance as default

Site design and distractions

• Many readers found the blog’s animated cursor and embedded Space Invaders–style game so distracting they barely read the article.
• Some enjoyed it as “delightful” or fun; others argued it undermined any serious message about surveillance and attention.

Browser architecture and standards

• One thread claims current web standards bodies push tight coupling of document rendering and JavaScript, making it harder to disable JS/tracking without breaking sites.
• Proposed remedies: a hard fork of major browsers, grassroots standards favoring partial template rendering and no-JS protocols (e.g., Gemini); some suggest public funding by states or cities.

Tracking, surveillance, and regulation

• Several comments emphasize GDPR is a broad data-protection law; cookie banners are mostly “malicious compliance,” not required by the text of the law.
• Others think the law’s implementation is flawed because it allowed “clicking gymnastics” rather than enforcing one‑click opt‑outs.
• There is disagreement over whether tracking automatically constitutes “surveillance”; some insist intention and usage matter, others argue the same data can trivially be repurposed for surveillance and even lethal targeting.

Apple, Google, and mobile privacy

• App Tracking Transparency (ATT) is praised as a simple, effective user control, but others stress it only blocks cross‑app identifiers, not tracking itself.
• DNS-based blockers show many apps still phone home despite ATT.
• Debate over trusting Apple: some say Apple is relatively trustworthy; others cite telemetry, weak defaults (unencrypted backups), and fines as reasons for skepticism.
• View that both Apple and Google profit from ads and are not true allies of user privacy.

Economics of the ad-driven web

• Broad agreement that ad-funded models drive surveillance, but disagreement on whether the web “needs” to make money.
• Some argue personal sites can and should be run at a loss; others insist commercial use and income are inevitable and legitimate.
• Concern that even paid services still surveil because it’s an additional revenue stream.

Public attitudes and responsibility

• Many report “nothing to hide” apathy among non-technical people; others believe this stems from poor understanding, not true indifference.
• Suggestions include teaching “digital hygiene” in schools and technologists taking more professional responsibility rather than blaming users.

Effectiveness and harms of targeted ads

• Several users report terrible targeting: scammy or irrelevant ads, retargeting for already-purchased items, wrong languages and locations.
• Some take this as evidence that ad profiling is overrated; others respond that poor individual targeting doesn’t prove the overall system is ineffective or harmless.
• Concerns extend beyond commerce to political manipulation, dynamic pricing, and discriminatory treatment based on profiles.

State surveillance and civil liberties

• Some commenters consider government surveillance inevitable and see the real issue as legal limits, warrant standards, and secret courts.
• Others question whether mass data collection has actually prevented crime or terrorism, citing “needle in a haystack” concerns and lack of demonstrated benefit.

Debate over framing and historical comparisons

• One camp sees comparisons to Stasi-level surveillance as exaggerated “snowflake” rhetoric, noting different motives and harms.
• Another group counters that once a repressive regime exists, commercial surveillance infrastructure will be repurposed; they point to contemporary authoritarian states as examples.
• Overall tension between viewing today’s ad-tech complex as merely annoying vs. as a prebuilt tool for future oppression.