We don't necessarily need the ad industry to work out the practicalities if we simply do away with the whole ad industry. We could quite easily outlaw receiving payments from a third party in exchange for displaying information to your users.
There is a (lazy) line of argument related to GDPR, cookie banners, etc. that goes something like this: "That legislation failed, thus any legislation will fail." It was a while since I did proof by induction, but I do believe there is some step missing here.
Personally, I am open to an argument that any legislation is folly. But we need to raise the discourse rather than just bash legislative failures (or merely partial successes) of the past.
I wasn't trying to make the argument that since some parts of the GDPR didn't work out as intentended/hoped, other legislation will fail too.
My point was specifically that the GDPR put a law in place that when you send private data from users to third parties, you must ask the user for permission and allow that user to decline this and then not send that users' private data to these third parties.
The idea and intention and hope is clear: that site/app/platform owners don't send/sell data to other parties. Or, if they still do so, are punished by having to nag users with popups/banners etc.
The ad industry then spun this around, ensured that virtually every site nags users (mitigating that punishment), continue harvesting data exactly like before, and -above all- pursuade the general public that "the EU is forcing you to click cookie banners all day" or similar double-speak.
With which I was trying to put forward that any legislation must be a lot better than what the GDPR did here. So as to avoid being circumvented by the industry and also hated by the public.
Ok, sure, but that's exactly what I said: simply outlawing advertising leaves a lot less wiggle room than allowing it but with some minor semblance of consent.
