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

The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#21

Post by Rjevski »

lwansbrough wrote: post #13

I co-run a network of websites that are ad supported. We'd consider our network to be quite optimized in terms of maximizing ad value. If you're unfamiliar with online advertising, 58 tracking services sounds like a lot. To me that just sounds like "optimized" header bidding -- ensuring you're (the publisher) getting the best value for the ads you're displaying. Google does a ton of work ensuring malicious content is…

> see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished.

Or they could run quality ads in a non privacy-invasive manner (just like print ads) and be happy.

> This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business.

Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with so they should've seen it coming, and there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers, and now finally with the law cracking down on it. I personally welcome GDPR and can't wait to see it take effect.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#22

Post by gaius »

jlgaddis wrote: post #4

Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" -- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical. Hell, my blog has Google Analytics and such on it and so I feel like I'm a hypocritic since I use uBlock Origin (with quite restrictive settings). I do intend to remove the analytics/trackers at some…

but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical

Wait ‘til you find out where the Graun is based for tax purposes...

Left-wing-ness is just a product that they sell. They don’t believe in it anymore than everyone in McDonald’s head office eats Big Macs every day...

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#23

Post by ams6110 »

ehnto wrote: post #19
ams6110 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just use uBlock. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on a website.

In which case see the last part of the post you replied to. I personally don't mind if web advertising phases out. I have no idea what the alternative is, but web advertising has become a cesspool of privacy invasion and coercive commercial intent that the world is better off without. In this day and age you might imagine that nothing exists in the world but commerce and advertising for that commerce, and without it…

The web existed for many years without pervasive advertising and tracking.

To me the obvious alternative is a return to generally targeted ads as are found on television or in print publications. They are targeted to general audience for the program/publication, and can be served inline with the main content (and therefore not blocked) and require no tracking.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#24

Post by TeMPOraL »

kosei wrote: post #18
ams6110 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just use uBlock. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on a website.

How do you think it all plays out if everyone decides to block ads and not pay for content?

The best content - done by passionate individuals for no monetary reasons - will stay. The good content will be kept afloat by donations. The usual corporate content will be written off as "marketing expense". The ad-supported worthless crap will disappear.

The Internet would become leaner, but I can't see how it would not also become better.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#25

Post by TeMPOraL »

jlgaddis wrote: post #4

Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" -- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical. Hell, my blog has Google Analytics and such on it and so I feel like I'm a hypocritic since I use uBlock Origin (with quite restrictive settings). I do intend to remove the analytics/trackers at some…

> Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" -- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical.

They might not be doing it for that purpose. They only help collect data in exchange for better ad service. The data lives on, however, and someone else uses it for surveillance and tracking.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#26

Post by papaf »

strict9 wrote: post #6
sien wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a great website to set up. "How many trackers" and report on media sites.

Definitely agree. I'm not defending a clusterbomb of advertisement trackers but its disingenuous to call out only one. I feel ashamed I once respected them/him as an outlet of truth but in reality serves only to push a single person's agenda.

In recent weeks the Guardian has been running a series of articles about privacy online. The articles have been good and rare in that they included original journalism.

I think that calling the newspaper out for the number of trackers is fair since it shows a mismatch between the behaviour of the company and the tone of the articles.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#27

Post by downer63 »

lwansbrough wrote: post #13

I co-run a network of websites that are ad supported. We'd consider our network to be quite optimized in terms of maximizing ad value. If you're unfamiliar with online advertising, 58 tracking services sounds like a lot. To me that just sounds like "optimized" header bidding -- ensuring you're (the publisher) getting the best value for the ads you're displaying. Google does a ton of work ensuring malicious content is…

Except, it's not optimized if I never wanted it in the first place.

And by the way, I already pay over $150 for monthly internet, when I combine phone and cable/fiber, and I pay for about ten premium services including The New York Times, HBO, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, Youtube/Google and Netflix, and I still see ads, so what's going on here? What does an ad-free life actually cost?

Tell me, I want to know. Or was that simply an unrealistic option never actually on the table to begin with?

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#28

Post by lwansbrough »

downer63 wrote: post #27
lwansbrough wrote: post #13

I co-run a network of websites that are ad supported. We'd consider our network to be quite optimized in terms of maximizing ad value. If you're unfamiliar with online advertising, 58 tracking services sounds like a lot. To me that just sounds like "optimized" header bidding -- ensuring you're (the publisher) getting the best value for the ads you're displaying. Google does a ton of work ensuring malicious content is…

Except, it's not optimized if I never wanted it in the first place. And by the way, I already pay over $150 for monthly internet, when I combine phone and cable/fiber, and I pay for about ten premium services including The New York Times, HBO, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, Youtube/Google and Netflix, and I still see ads, so what's going on here? What does an ad-free life actually cost? Tell me, I want to know. Or was that si…

Not sure where you get this sense of entitlement that nothing you use should cost money to use, when it costs money to build/maintain/run. "I already pay for gas, why should I have to pay the stores I drive to?"

No, free (as in beer) has never been on the table. Free doesn't exist. I suppose an ad-free life costs what the market dictates, which it never has because of ads, thank goodness. I think if people had to pay for everything they use there would be a lot less innovation and certainly far fewer options.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

#30

Post by beedogs »

kosei wrote: post #18
ams6110 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just use uBlock. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on a website.

How do you think it all plays out if everyone decides to block ads and not pay for content?

In that situation?

Optimally.

It plays out optimally.

If everyone suddenly installed and ran an aggressive ad-blocker, we could strangle all of the tracking networks overnight and the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place.

People who refuse to concede that allowing ads is functionally the same thing as inviting third parties to monitor your browsing patterns and invade your privacy are being disingenuous.

Post reply on HN