Connect with us


Mark Bittman Explains Why the Next 100 Years of Food Will Have to Be Radically Different

Mark Bittman Explains Why the Next 100 Years of Food Will Have to Be Radically Different

A displaced Iraqi woman, who fled violence in the northern city of Tal Afar, tends to the cucumber vines inside a plastic greenhouse at the Bahrka refugee camp located in the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq on May 20, 2017.

A displaced Iraqi woman, who fled violence in the northern city of Tal Afar, tends to the cucumber vines inside a plastic greenhouse at the Bahrka refugee camp located in the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq on May 20, 2017.
Photo: Safin Hamed/AFP (Getty Images)

Mark Bittman is most famous for the 30,000 recipes he’s developed in decades of being a food journalist and authoring 30 books focused on cooking and eating. But this month’s Animal, Vegetable, Junk: A History of Food from Sustainable to Suicidal is not another recipe book, it’s a deeply researched call to arms to reshape our food system to center people and planet rather than profit.

Bittman opens this food history by quoting four figures: Naomi Klein, John Muir, Rachel Carson, and Malcolm X—four people from different eras but bound by their understanding of the interconnectedness of the world—before walking readers through hundreds of food mistakes throughout human history, from the salinization of Sumerian wheat fields to the sugary backstabbing origin of Heinz ketchup.

He does not mince words: “Agriculture has, over the course of human history, gotten away with murder. With each passing century, it’s gotten better at it, until it became a justification for imperialism and genocide.” Today’s deeply inefficient and fossil-fuel-powered food system is only this century’s attempt to exploit labor and resources. Along with the structural pressures on farmers, the climate crisis is a long-term form of violence on agriculturists, perpetrated by rich countries, that affects the livelihood of the poorest farmers on Earth—and its legacy is set to stretch for decades to come.

The cover of "Animal, Vegetable, Junk."

Image: HMH

This new book feels like Bittman at his most openly radical: anti-capitalist, pro-labor and organizing, an advocate for a Green New Deal land reform initiatives to give Black and brown Americans the lives and food systems we deserve. He takes time to outline how slavery centralized food production into distant plantations where unimaginable quantities of a single crop were forcibly harvested. This helped the rich ignore the genocide and ecocide that plantation agriculture perpetuated, while establishing a precedent for food to be grown en masse by distant strangers in large tracts of land. Throughout the book, Bittman hammers home how slavery’s effects can be felt throughout our present-day food system as well as the opportunities the U.S. had for agricultural reparations—opportunities that have historically been denied to Black Americans (though more are on the horizon).

Animal, Vegetable, Junk is a great introductory book on agriculture to give to a loved one—perhaps someone who already loves Bittman for his creamed spinach or no-knead bread—as a primer into history’s many agroecological mistakes and the way we can build better food system. Earther spoke with Bittman about the new book, the Biden administration’s food policy, and collective climate organizing. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Pearse Anderson, Earther: This book has received praise from everyone from Vice President Al Gore to Jared Diamond to Top Chef’s Tom Colicchio. I’m curious to hear from you, what is your intended audience of the book, and what do you hope to inspire in people when they’ve finished this tome?

Mark Bittman: This is a book for people willing to read serious nonfiction, anyone who’s willing to open an interesting book about something that’s affected every human who’s ever lived. I want people to take food more seriously to think about how the food system affects just about everything: the way that we are doing agriculture, processing food, and eating food is a crisis. We often overemphasize some crises and we underemphasize other crises, maybe it’s crisis fatigue, but the way we farm and the way we eat are both crises, and we should treat them as such.

Earther: You finished writing the book in 2020, before we knew there would be a Biden administration. Do you feel more optimistic now for agricultural policy change in 2021?

Bittman: A lot is going to depend on Congress, but I do think that Biden is going to make big changes, and that has to mean big changes in the food system. You can’t work on agriculture, you can’t work on climate, and you can’t work on equity without addressing food issues. If he’s going to address those topics, then food is going to be part of the picture.

Earther: What agricultural and environmental changes do you want to see the Biden administration take on during these first 100 days in office?

Bittman: I could be specific and say end the ethanol mandate, end subsidies to corn, increase eligibility for food stamps, raise the allowances, and so on. But anything that moves in that direction is going to be is going to be welcome. There’s not going to be a revolution that sets things so suddenly in the right direction that we’re all going to wake up one morning with our head spinning. There’s going to be a series of decisions that move things incrementally, even in climate change, even with covid-19. We don’t know what will work until we try things out—what works on paper is only rarely what works in the real world. As Mike Tyson said, “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

Earther: In the ending pages of Animal, Vegetable, Junk, you recommend supporting a Green New Deal, undoing land theft, and distributing wealth hoarded by mostly European American men. What would a post-Green New Deal kitchen look like, and why should home cooks and everyday Americans be excited for one?

Bittman: I don’t know if people of our generation—either yours or mine—would be excited by a kitchen that’s stocked by a just and fair food system. Part of the issue is that we don’t teach children what real food is, and until we do that we won’t have grown-ups who understand food very well. It’s hard to change your food habits, which are as greatly influenced by marketers as your own parents, and your parents’ habits were greatly influenced by marketers, because we’re three, four, five generations into this now. Until we make a conscious decision that we’re going to teach four year olds where food comes from, what it takes to grow real food, what healthy eating means, we’ll see adults claiming that they have a right to eat a Whopper whenever they want. They’ll say anything less is deprivation. And that’s not something we’ll deal with tomorrow.

Earther: So you’re saying that because of how thoroughly meat consumption, ultra-processed foods, and so on have been ground into us that the first generation that could be excited for like a post-Green New Deal food system would be a generation that’s not been born yet?

Bittman: (laughing) Yeah, more or less not one born yet. I’m not saying we can’t make changes, just that a lot of people would be disappointed if we mandated a 50% reduction in the consumption of animal products and a 90% reduction in the production of junk food. Yet, in 100 years, that’s what the food system is going to look like or we’re not going to be here.

Earther: You criticize capitalism throughout this book, both through the lenses of justice and climate, and instead point to other models of governance like the Black Panthers and peasant rights groups. Do you see yourself as anti-capitalist?

Bittman: I’ve seen myself as a socialist since 1970. It doesn’t mean that much really. I mean, it does, but what you’re doing on a daily basis is important, not how you label yourself. Neil Stephenson, the science fiction writer, said something like, “We all know that there’s not going to be capitalism 1,000 years from now. So why don’t we get started on building a new alternative today?” That’s a good long term view.

Earther: You’ve developed roughly 30,000 recipes in your many years as a chef and writer, including variations and updates. How has the way you created recipes changed to focus on the climate and agroecology?

Bittman: It started to change 20 years ago when I wrote How to Cook Everything Vegetarian, and I became more concerned after writing Food Matters and Vegan Before 6. Now, I take it for granted that recipes should be plant-forward and that a large portion of them should contain little or no meat. Thirty years ago, I certainly didn’t think that way. But we’re up against the food system that spends literally billions of dollars a year marketing junk.

Earther: You literally wrote the book How to Cook Everything, but in recent editions you’ve edited down recipes that are less sustainable, like swordfish, tuna, and shrimp dishes. Do you hope more cookbooks or food magazines edit or phase out recipes for climate or environmental justice reasons?

Bittman: The short answer is yes, that should happen. I think it is happening. There will be fewer recipes with animal products and more appealing plant-forward ones. There are writers, magazines, and publishers that recognize how important it is, and that it’s what people want. But recipes are our roadmaps, and people have to make their own judgments. We’re doing more of that starting this month with the launch of the Bittman Project. Besides developing cookbooks and newsletters with recipes and news, we’ll have video and audio components that can give people an approach to food that is all-encompassing, from food policy to recipes.

Earther: Recipe developers and food magazines often put the onus on eaters to change their behaviors to “eat right” and focus on personal diet and wellness, which you rightfully critique in your book for not challenging the status quo because they’re not accompanied by changes in supply and policy. Later, you write that movement organizing, coalition building, and protesting creates meaningful change. What do you wish the recipe industry did to move from focusing on personal self-help to collective help, such as working in solidarity with protest movements?

Bittman: That’s an interesting question, it might be more interesting than my answer. Because if you asked me what you could change in your life to make a difference to yourself and the world, changing your diet is one of those things. But you don’t change society by changing your diet. We need to act collectively in order to create meaningful, lasting change. We need to see the Earth not as a mine to be stripped of resources but as a pantry that needs to be replenished. We’ve avoided running out of resources through technology, but I don’t think technology is going to come to the rescue. I think acting collectively is the only way that we can really save ourselves.

Now if food writers, individually, want to do the right thing? That’s great. But I don’t think we can count on food publications to be organizing or heralding a new era. We need to do the groundwork of organizing our neighborhoods, of supporting local farmers and encouraging new farmers, and trying to pass legislation that goes from limiting marketing of junk food to children to land reform. That’s a broad spectrum and everything in between those two things is important to work for. It’s not like personal decisions do not matter, but it’s that they don’t work for everyone is that not everyone has equal access to food. Ensuring equal access means going beyond food to social justice, health care, and the essential rights of every human to housing, health, food, etc.

Earther: Are there any specific land reform initiatives from other countries that we should use as models for the kind of land reform that we need in the U.S.?

Bittman: Brazil redistributed as much land in the early 2000s as it had ever done in its entire history, and did it fairly and equitably. Now, I don’t know what Bolsonaro has done to undo that, which goes to show the importance of encouraging and forcing governments to make those kinds of changes while building strong organizations that can push governments to maintain those kinds of changes. What government does, government can undo, and that’s both good and bad.

Pearse Anderson is a Gen Z journalist and cli-fi writer who covers climate, food, books, and internet culture. He can be found at @pearseanderson on social media.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Bishops say avoid the J&J vaccine because it was made using fetal cells – Insider

Bishops say avoid the J&J vaccine because it was made using fetal cells - Insider
  • US Catholic bishops are asking people to seek vaccines other than Johnson & Johnson’s if possible.
  • J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine was developed using human fetal tissue replicated from aborted stem cells.
  • Pope Francis previously said vaccines derived from aborted cells could be “morally acceptable.”
  • Visit Insider’s homepage for more stories.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is speaking out against the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine because it was developed using cells from an aborted fetus.

“Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines raised concerns because an abortion-derived cell line was used for testing them, but not in their production,” a statement from the conference said.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, however, was “developed, tested, and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines raising additional moral concerns,” it continued.

The conference said that if there’s a choice, people should take the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines instead, referring back to its January recommendations that people opt for a vaccine with “the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines.”

If a person has no choice of vaccine, however, the conference said in that January guidance that it was morally permissible to accept any available coronavirus vaccine “given that the COVID-19 virus can involve serious health risks.”

The new statement followed an announcement from the Archdiocese of New Orleans on Friday that described the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as “morally compromised, as it uses the abortion-derived cell line in development and production of the vaccine as well as the testing.”

Insider has reached out to Johnson & Johnson for comment.

The Food and Drug Administration authorized the Johnson & Johnson vaccine over the weekend for emergency use. As the first single-dose coronavirus vaccine to be authorized in the US, it could help Americans reach herd immunity — the level of resistance to COVID-19 needed to keep the coronavirus from spreading — more quickly.

Pope Francis has yet to specifically address the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but the Vatican previously said it could be “morally acceptable” to take vaccines “that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.”

In a statement released in December, the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that while it encouraged pharmaceutical researchers to create vaccines without employing the use of fetuses, it also advised that Catholics would not violate the church’s beliefs if they used vaccines created using aborted cells.

“The certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in the production of the vaccines derive,” the statement said, noting that using the vaccines should “not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.”

The cells used in the development of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine derive from a fetus aborted in the early 1970s and have been replicated numerous times across various scientific firms and pharmaceutical companies.

Debate over the use of fetal stem cells has raged for decades, with anti-abortion advocates arguing that supporting companies that do such research amounts to tacit approval of abortion.

The US government regularly funds research employing fetal tissue. In 2014, for instance, the National Institutes of Health doled out about $76 million in support of projects using fetal cells, according to Scientific American.

President Donald Trump restricted the use of aborted fetal tissue in research during his term, even though Regeneron, the antibody therapy he touted as a “cure” for COVID-19, was tested using fetal cells. The scientific community has released a letter to President Joe Biden calling on him to roll back Trump’s restrictions to allow for increased fetal tissue use.

“We are confident that an independent and rigorous evaluation of the scientific and ethical merits of HFT [human fetal tissue] research would find that it will continue to advance scientific research and contribute to the development of new treatments,” the letter said.

Continue Reading


10 Anthology Shows That Explore the Dark Side of Technology

10 Anthology Shows That Explore the Dark Side of Technology

The recent, Jordan Peele-hosted reboot of the iconic 1959 classic, The Twilight Zone brings sci-fi stories about morality to the modern age. A camcorder that can rewind time, but cannot save a young man from police brutality. A comedian who is literally deathly funny. A podcast that seemingly predicts every moment of a passenger’s plane ride. These stories hold a mirror up to current society, making viewers think in completely different ways about fate and circumstance. Unfortunately, the show was recently canceled after two seasons, but it will live on in streaming perpetuity. (And you can always revisit the original, which produced plenty of timeless episodes.)

Where to watch: The remake is on CBS All Access (or, if you’re reading this after March 4, 2021, Paramount+), while the original is available on Hulu.

Continue Reading


Beleaguered Hong Kong Celebrities Change Channels

Beleaguered Hong Kong Celebrities Change Channels

Back in the heyday of Hong Kong movies, the city’s film stars and those groomed by the Hong Kong industry were among the biggest stars in Asia.

Now, facing the twin pressures of coronavirus’ impact on productions and performances and, for some, a cold shoulder from mainland Chinese audiences, many Hong Kong stars are becoming digital creators and entrepreneurs.

Not only have film and TV opportunities dried up, well-paid promotional gigs, such as ribbon-cutting ceremonies for shop openings and commercial launches at shopping malls, were called off throughout 2020.

Pop concerts were canceled due to strict social distancing measures in Hong Kong. In December, a concert by Hins Cheung caused a COVID-19 scare when four audience members and a show worker tested positive.

World tours taking in cities populated by Chinese-speaking communities had traditionally been a major source of income for Hong Kong entertainers, even for lesser-known starlets. But global travel restrictions have made these all but impossible.

While television productions are still happening in Hong Kong, only a handful of film projects went into production last year. And the city’s 163-day cinema closure caused release and production delays.

It was inevitable that entertainers would cultivate new opportunities online, says Winnie Tam, an entertainment publicist. “They need to find ways to maintain their exposure,” she said. Some top Hong Kong celebrities have even followed the mainland trend and are selling commercial goods online via live streaming.

Digitally-savvy younger performers are focusing on producing original content. Nearly every member of the 12-piece boy band Mirror, for example, operates his own YouTube channel and Instagram account, regularly uploading vlogs of their daily routines and interacting with their fans on live streams, in addition to promoting their musical and TV releases. Some have produced scripted mini-comedies and music gigs with other musicians. Others are selling fashion products they have designed.

Some more-established celebrities have became successful YouTubers. Remus Choy of male Canto-pop group Grasshopper shows off his cooking skills on his YouTube channel, and has accumulated over 100,000 subscribers since its launch last year. Stephen Chan, the former GM of Television Broadcasts and a radio show host, runs his own channel featuring short dramas, live music shows, celebrity interviews and political commentaries, and has amassed more than 125,000 followers. Singer-actor Ronald Cheng has more than 211,000 YouTube followers.

Some Hong Kong celebrities who have been banished from working in mainland China because of their political views are among the most active online. Actor Chapman To (“SDU: Sex Duties Unit,” “Infernal Affairs”) and singer-actor Denise Ho (Life Without Principle”) are examples. To’s “Lateshow” channel has more than 630,000 subscribers and he is expanding his channel to an online television platform. Ho runs a regular podcast interviewing folks from all walks of life on her channel with over 120,000 followers.

In addition to producing their own content, stars have been more open to making appearances on new media channels, Tam explains. Whizoo, Pomato, CapTV, Trial & Error and the Macau-based Manner are among the most popular among celebrities. “Shooting for these channels might take more time than giving interviews to traditional media, but these channels reach a younger audience,” she said.

The heavy reliance on digital devices amid the pandemic meant that celebrities were left with no choice but to find their audiences in cyberspace, said Agnes Lam, a journalism lecturer at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Young stars in particular. “They have to commercialize their private life,” Lam said.

Lazy loaded image

A-listers previously shied away from appearing on the new media also have to adapt. Superstar actor-singer Andy Lau, who never had a social media channel, opened his first account on mainland China’s TikTok equivalent Douyin. He attracted 20 million followers within four days, before the platform downgraded him for watermarking his videos and including commercial links. Singer Eason Chan also fronted a live talk show in December to promote a new single.

But the most sophisticated player, according to Lam, is award-winning actor Chow Yun-fat. Chow does not have his own social media accounts or channels, but he remains a regular on people’s social media feeds. The veteran actor known as a hiking enthusiast who welcomes selfies with fans if they run into him on mountain trails. Selfies with Chow are among the most coveted items among netizens. “People play social media for Chow. He doesn’t have to manage his own account,” Lam says.


Continue Reading


How to Overcome Zoom Fatigue

How to Overcome Zoom Fatigue

Illustration for article titled How to Overcome 'Zoom Fatigue'

Photo: Girts Ragelis (Shutterstock)

Throughout the pandemic, many former office workers have been necessarily glued to their computer monitors. As work migrated online, video tools like Zoom and Google Hangouts have become the rare outlet for regular face-time with colleagues. But short of an alternative for seeing your co-workers without a screen in the way, all this videoconferencing has led to an epidemic of “Zoom fatigue.”

According to a new study from Stanford researchers published in the journal Technology, Mind and Behavior, Zoom fatigue is basically what it sounds like—resulting from the increased strain of maintaining connections at a distance through video chat—and it leads to burnout, stress, and monotony on the job. But there are ways you can mitigate the stranglehold video conferencing might have on your spirits.

What is Zoom fatigue?

It doesn’t apply to Zoom specifically, and the company’s executives would probably argue that the term does their marketing efforts a disservice. According to Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of the Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab, the issue applies to all video conferencing services. Generally speaking, it describes the fatigue caused by needing to feel perpetually switched on as you jump between browser windows for various online meetings. It makes sense, too, given that studies have shown that increased screen time—especially when coupled with a sedentary lifestyle—heightens your chances of developing moderate to severe depression.

If you suffer from this, you’re probably usually drowning in a heavy schedule of virtual meetings, and feeling like you can barely keep your head above water.

What causes it

Bailenson’s research pinpoints four reasons videoconferencing can be so mentally taxing:

  • Intense eye contact is tiring. Locking eyes with your colleagues to show that you’re paying attention can feel demanding. Doing so multiple times a day can feel oppressive. Short of making concerted eye contact throughout much of the meeting, your co-workers might think your attention is flagging.
  • Watching yourself during video chats is fatiguing. Watching yourself in a meeting only heightens performance anxiety. The psychological cost of living throughout the pandemic is burdensome enough—why compound it with worrying about how you look to your colleagues?
  • Video chats mean we move around less. If you’re constantly shackled to a desk, you’re not moving around nearly as much your body needs to. At least in a traditional office environment you might have to walk to a conference room on a different floor. Toggling between different video meetings means we sit more and move around less, to the detriment of our mental wellbeing.
  • Nonverbal cues are harder to interpret. The challenge of deciphering nonverbal cues only adds to the stress brought on by video chats. This can lead to what Bailenson calls a “cognitive overload,” where your head might be swimming in assumed subtext from the conversation.

Ways to combat Zoom fatigue

Luckily, Bailenson didn’t uncover the issues without offering solutions.

  • For eye contact: The researcher recommends not using the full screen setting. This way your colleagues will at least look a little smaller, so you won’t feel quite as pressured to keep your eyes fixed to theirs.
  • For self-consciousness: It isn’t really necessary to keep your camera switched on for every meeting. If you’re not presenting something, what’s the point of filming yourself? If you have to keep your camera on, Bailenson recommends adjusting your settings so you only see the other person on the chat, instead of having both videos available to both parties. In the meantime though, don’t hesitate to turn your camera off.
  • For mobility: Bailenson recommends getting a different camera you can link to your feed so you can still move around, and perhaps present from a standing position if you feel so inclined. Another recourse is to turn your camera off again and to wear bluetooth headphones, so you can walk around your house or apartment.
  • For anxiety over nonverbal cues: Turning your camera off also works fine, but to reinforce it even further, the researcher recommends listening to the meeting while away from your computer. This way, if you’re only using audio and feel comfortable attending the meeting while, say, putting away the dishes, you won’t be worried about over analyzing all the micro-cues that routinely pop up.

Continue Reading


Confuse Google Ads With This Chrome Extension

Confuse Google Ads With This Chrome Extension

In an online world in which countless systems are trying to figure out what exactly you enjoy so they can serve you up advertising about it, it really fucks up their profiling mechanisms when they think you like everything. And to help you out with this approach, I recommend checking out the Chrome/Firefox extension AdNauseum. You won’t find it on the Chrome Web Store, however, as Google frowns at extensions that screw up Google’s efforts to show you advertising for some totally inexplicable reason. You’ll have to install it manually, but it’s worth it.

It’s no secret the internet is packed with companies eager to figure out everything you do, everything you like, and what things you like more than the other things you like so you can be shown advertising that will remind you to buy and do those liked things. Such is the way of the online world—the price we pay to access content freely.

You can try to combat data-collection in all kinds of fun ways, including manually blocking or clearing the data companies have on you and preventing yourself from being tracked as much as possible with various adblockers, anti-tracking extensions, and privacy-themed browsers, but considering the number of systems out there tracking you, those methods can only be so effective.

AdNauseum works on a different principle. As Lee McGuigan writes over at the MIT Technology Review:

“AdNauseam is like conventional ad-blocking software, but with an extra layer. Instead of just removing ads when the user browses a website, it also automatically clicks on them. By making it appear as if the user is interested in everything, AdNauseam makes it hard for observers to construct a profile of that person. It’s like jamming radar by flooding it with false signals. And it’s adjustable. Users can choose to trust privacy-respecting advertisers while jamming others. They can also choose whether to automatically click on all the ads on a given website or only some percentage of them.”

McGuigan goes on to describe the various experiments he worked on with AdNauseum founder Helen Nissenbaum, allegedly proving that the extension can make it past Google’s various checks for fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate clicks on advertising. Google, as you might expect, denies the experiments actually prove anything, and maintains that a “vast majority” of these kinds of clicks are detected and ignored.

Frankly, I’d give the extension a try. Worst case, it doesn’t do anything. Best case, you find that the various ads you’re seeing around the web aren’t really specific to anything you’re interested in—at least, not as much as before, when you swore “Facebook was listening” because you saw an ad in your feed for something you talked about with a friend the day prior.

Once you’ve installed AdNauseum, you’ll be presented with three simple options:


Screenshot: David Murphy

Feel free to enable all three, but heed AdNauseum’s warning: You probably don’t want to use the extension alongside another adblocker, as the two will conflict and you probably won’t see any added benefit.

As with most adblockers, there are plenty of options you can play with if you dig deeper into AdNauseum’s settings. For example, you can customize your filter lists and add or remove anything you want, in case you’re running into issues with adblocks (or need to block more):


Screenshot: David Murphy

You can also adjust how often AdNauseum “clicks” on ads you’re served under its general Settings menu:


Screenshot: David Murphy

I confess, I couldn’t get AdNauseum to produce effective results on my Firefox installation—nothing appeared “clicked” in my vault—but the extension’s adblocking capabilities worked wonderfully. However, I have a pretty unique adblocking setup at home, which could explain my issues.

AdNauseum may not be the be-all, end-all solution to thwarting online advertising, but it is an incredibly useful adblocker—a fork of the ever-popular uBlock Origin—so it doesn’t hurt to give it a whirl. If you like it, great. If you don’t, there are plenty of other tools you can try to fight online advertising—or at the very least, to prevent yourself from seeing it, even if you’re still being profiled by a thousand sites and services every time you load a web page.

And note that AdNauseum still (theoretically) generates revenue for the sites tracking you. That in itself might cause you to adopt a nuclear approach vs. an obfuscation-by-noise approach. Your call.

Continue Reading