Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#41

Post by TeMPOraL »

Aeolun wrote: post #40
oneJob wrote: post #3

So,,, at what point does this become accepted (as opposed to tolerated) business practice? Or, more optimistic, no longer tolerated. At one point it was ok to say, "This is all new and still being worked out." But, it is no longer new. It is very worked out. Entire sectors of the economy (and legal system) are devoted to knowing more about consumers then they sometimes know about themselves. The entire industry is be…

You need information about humanity to save it from itself. How else would you know what to fix?

Indeed. I find data collection good - just not for the things we're collecting it now. Ad industry works against civilization. But the same information could be used to improve our lives on a global scale.

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#42

Post by Animats »

A few days ago, I posted "Unicorns aren't ad-supported" on HN.[1] There, I pointed out that, of a list of the top 50 "unicorns", non-public startups with > $1bn valuations, only three (Snapchat, Pintrest, and Vice) are ad-supported. This dot-com boom isn't driven by ads. It's driven by companies that provide a product or service for which their customers pay them. The companies that make their money from ads are from the previous dot-com boom.

Ad-blocking and tracker-blocking thus won't hurt the growth companies in Silicon Valley. YC could get behind ad-blocking without reducing the value of their portfolio. The concept that "the user is the product, not the customer" is now outdated. There are still companies which rely on it. They are vulnerable. Google still hasn't come up with a major revenue-generating product other than ads.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372789

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#43

Post by qmalxp »

r0naa wrote: post #4

I do have a Facebook account, primarily because I am studying abroad and I need to keep in touch with my family and close friends and Facebook is, thus far, the best way to share what is going on in my life. It kind of allow me to "broadcast" my life events. Now, I really dislike what I just read. I wonder if tech companies have a moral obligation to disclose to the user what are the terms of the contracts. While ToS…

I thought the fact that messages and photos are kept was a feature. As in, I can scroll back a decade in my photo albums and look at pictures from my high school graduation.

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#44

Post by joeblow99 »

don't like it? don't use it.

It's not that hard. No big dilemma. This kind of complaint all boils down to "I wish that company was doing it MY way. I want ALL the free benefits and services they offer me but I want them to make it EASIER for me to do X Y and Z"

Well, sorry. Don't use it if you don't like it.

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#46

Post by sbov »

kaybe wrote: post #25
sbov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to always use incognito browsing sessions when logging into Facebook. At some point I cleared all my cookies too. I remember a while back an article was posted about how to uniquely identify users without cookies though. I don't recall the exact method though, or if in this scenario it would require javascript and not just a link to a like button.

Basically you're using the specs the browser sends about the computer - OS, screen size, add-ons installed.. this gets pretty unique. I've been able to identify friends on a local site just by knowing them and their computers. Check yourself here: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Was able to find it. Actually it's using etags. They work even if you disable cookies. Perfect identification, similar to cookies. Sites were using it before it came to light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag#Tracking_using_ETags

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#47

Post by bootload »

eevilspock wrote: post #39
ised wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last line from the article you quote is spot on. Why are alleged "services" provided for "free"? One group will tell you it's because advertisers are picking up the costs for "content". Another group will tell you that it's because no user (cf. advertiser) would pay if a "fee" were charged to use the www. Of course, no "free" business model will dare test the theory of the later group, so I guess we'll never know…

I believe we need a multi-pronged approach to retaking the internet from the forces that dominate it now. One prong is a resistance movement, such as I suggest above. Another is to innovate on better ways to finance content and services on the web, be it micropayments or something else. And another is to find a way to counter or eliminate the perverse incentives that drive clickbait, garbage content and viral shallow…

"my username is a reference to Star Trek"

Goatie, S2 OTS.

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#48

Post by jlarocco »

sbov wrote: post #13
stanleydrew wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technical details are simple. When you are "logged in" to Facebook, your browser stores a unique token in a cookie that can identify you. That unique token is sent with every request the browser sends to FB, even requests you don't initiate directly. These hidden requests happen all the time, like when a web developer embeds a FB like button on a page. The like button is actually generated and served by FB's serv…

I like to always use incognito browsing sessions when logging into Facebook. At some point I cleared all my cookies too. I remember a while back an article was posted about how to uniquely identify users without cookies though. I don't recall the exact method though, or if in this scenario it would require javascript and not just a link to a like button.

I'm not sure incognito browsing actually helps much.

User tracking isn't a 100% accurate science, and your browser name, browser version, operating system, OS version, IP address, screen resolution, etc. are still getting sent along and they don't change by going incognito. It's no big deal for Facebook to just assume it's still you if the only thing that's changed is that you're no longer sending the same session cookie.

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#49

Post by maxerickson »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #37
maxerickson wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a huge UI problem, but browsers should probably default to the behavior that you are leaning over to one side and hopping on one foot to get. Then you need a UI for selectively turning on sharing of information between sites. The advanced mode in uBlock is a big step forward for users that want to bother with it, but I'm not sure it is even solvable for users that don't want to bother.

I just looked at uBlock. I have used Privacy Badger for a long while, mostly because it is from the EFF and I trust them. What are uBlock advantages?

It's not an advantage per se, it just has a UI for managing the filtering of various requests:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-qu...

One way to use it is to set global deny rules for various things and then only turn back on what is needed for sites to function.

Re: Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit

#50

Post by josteink »

Glad to see Chromebooks mentioned. I for one consider Chrome to be Google's last attempt to extract those last pieces of information from the desktop which it can't get from having tracking on 99% of the pages found on the internet.

That and subvert internet standards by giving Google the ability to push their own HTML on server and client in real-time, forcing other browser to follow their lead or be declared "legacy" or "outdated" in front of users on Google-websites.

I consider Chrome to probably be the worst thing which has happened to the modern web. It's much worse than IE ever was.

On a real laptop you have the freedom to chose a privacy-respecting browser, but Chromebooks are even worse in the sense that there's only one browser, you can't chose any other, and the browser there is spying on you real-time.

That these devices are not illegal to use in a education-context is really astounding to me.

Post reply on HN