Great to hear that addressing climate change will also address annoying online advertising. Here’s an excerpt from that article:
Chris Adams, a web designer and climate activist in Berlin, tells me he thinks a green internet must be free of advertising. “Ninety percent of a web page being ads requires servers, and those servers are taking electricity, and that electricity is generated by burning coal,” he says. Adams has written that the European site for USA Today is a model of efficiency. It removed all of its tracking scripts and ads to be compliant with recent General Data Protection Regulation legislation in the European Union. The site size immediately shrank from 5 megabytes to 500 kilobytes, but it still basically looks the same—there are just no ads. The leaner site, based on Adams’s rough calculations, saves more energy and pollutes less. Its monthly reduction in carbon dioxide, based on traffic numbers, is the equivalent of a flight between New York and Chicago.
Relatedly, with ads and tracking scripts gone, energy cost and data usage doesn’t just plummet—there are also fewer people looking over your shoulder when you visit USA Today ’s website. “Is a climate-friendly internet one in which you’re not surveilled?” asks Tim Frick, CEO of the green digital agency Mightybytes. “I absolutely believe that.”
When it comes to reducing the ads ‘server footprint’ by eliminating ads, we consumers will be burdened with a new way of web sites getting paid. And, as is usually the outcome, it will cost us much more, add more to the climate change Orcs, and justify taxes on everything Internet that is ‘content’.
Before aiming at our foot, we should first look at what it will cost to replace that foot.
I can’t even see the stars any more and not seeing any ads either, doesn’t balance it but if we turned off all our non-essential lights at night we’d see starts (a few anyway) and I think reduce a carbon footprint there.
Corporations now own the Internet and will decide it’s future and ads will be a major part of it - like it or not, the CEO’s are not going to change anything about ads unless it’s to use hypnosis - too many businesses depend on SMRCing us, building the ads, and selling us what we don’t need to even care to change their ways.
Just say’n s’all
Somewhat true. We consumers can still have an impact by voting at polling stations and also voting with our pocketbooks.
Why do ads have to track us? Maybe we need to go back to “old fashioned” advertising. That alone would conserve a tremendous amount of server space/energy and help reduce stockpiles of consumer personal information.