posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:00 PM
I can understand your concern about loss of revenue though ads.
However, many of these advertisers ARE unscrupulous and people have experienced virus attacks and trojans because of these ads. I have, on many
occassions, had my computer both attacked and frozen from such ads.
I think people should have a voice in whether to allow cookies or not. Otherwise, it is a condition of use that is being shoved down our throats
whether we like it or not.
Those who wish to contribute financially to the website by allowing cookies should have the option of "giving" in that way instead of it being
demanded of them.
Also, if allowing cookies were an optional feature, and even if it did affect the income of the website, then those websites who still stand, in spite
of smaller incomes from ads, would show that their motives are altruistic and not simply a "for profit" pasttime.
When people are involved in something they truly believe in, lack of monetary reward is not a factor.
I am in favor of the bill that gives people the voice of freedom of choice.
[edit on 25-11-2009 by Alethea]