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

Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 294 posts

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#121

Post by KAMSPioneer »

tjr225 wrote: post #75
pointillistic wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I am aware of the alternatives but it's an uphill battle to fight a monopoly, i.e. I have only Comcast here as Internet option, etc.

Not using google is actually a piece of cake. Ther are reasonable competitors for nearly all of their services, except maybe translate and maps. Though I have been looking at OSM a lot lately. I, personally, use an DuckDuckGo, an iPhone and Apple mail. Amazon isn't an issue really- just buy whatever you were going to get on amazon somewhere else - it's pretty rare that I find a noticeable price difference (unless we'…

DeepL is a good alternative to Google Translate, though it is quite a bit more limited in terms of features and languages. I often find DeepL translations to be of higher quality than Google's (for the 2-3 languages I regularly translate between).

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#122

Post by i1856511 »

mrep wrote: post #119
i1856511 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of attention in the press is given to Google et. al. about purchase profiling and tracking for ads. But the concept of purchase profiling has existed really since the invention of the credit card. As others have mentioned hedge funds have brokered this data for decades - but for some reason it has not been covered as excruciatingly as it has for tech companies. While I disapprove of the practice overall I would…

It is somewhat ironic that Google is probably more privacy focused and has better security than any other company in the fortune 500 and yet they seem to get some of the most negative criticism here.

Yes it is. Personally, I dislike tracking and don't mind disparaging Google for it - but I think in this case reporting like this manages to miss the heart of the problem and mischaracterize the situation.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#123

Post by mulmen »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #87
DeepYogurt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pull money out at an ATM and pay for things with cash I guess. Not great, but it's an option.

Do you think gift cards would shield you enough? I mean they can be tied to the card used to purchase. But are the data-mongers doing that?

Gift cards can be purchased with cash.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#124

Post by mulmen »

doug3465 wrote: post #5
mtmail wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article "The company said people can opt out of ad tracking using Google’s “Web and App Activity” online console. Inside Google, multiple people raised objections that the service did not have a more obvious way for cardholders to opt out of the tracking, one of the people said."

Do you really believe they stop tracking your data even if you opt out after recent events?

What events are those?

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#125

Post by pm90 »

i1856511 wrote: post #94
noelsusman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your only option is to refuse cards altogether because they've all been selling anonymized data on you for years. The big hedge funds pay big dollars for direct lines of data from the credit card companies.

A lot of attention in the press is given to Google et. al. about purchase profiling and tracking for ads. But the concept of purchase profiling has existed really since the invention of the credit card. As others have mentioned hedge funds have brokered this data for decades - but for some reason it has not been covered as excruciatingly as it has for tech companies. While I disapprove of the practice overall I would…

Yes non-tech companies have done this forever, but it was only when online tracking started that the amount of data you could collect on people exploded. And Google, Facebook etc. figured out how to monetize it much more effectively, generating the lions share of its revenues through such ads.

So IMO tech companies are well deserving of the criticism they’re facing.

Also, tech acts as a (mostly) reliable steward of this data because they can monetize it so well. If 90% of the revenues of Target came from advertising, we would probably not have had the massive leak of cc data. For most traditional businesses, this data is an additional source of revenue, not the primary one.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#126

Post by leereeves »

Skunkleton wrote: post #59
mvpu wrote: post #49

The key here is "double-blind encryption" - assuming they got that right, neither can see exactly what I am buying, so I'm good. Bigger point: I'd be ok with any company tracking my activities _as long as_ one of two conditions are met: a) it benefits me (and me only), or b) it benefits them _but_ they cannot identify me.

The privacy aspects are important, but it is also worth considering the impact this sort of stuff has on society. We like to think of ourselves as semi-immune to advertisement (and manipulation), but we really aren't. The 2016 presidential election proved that. Putting more and more data into the hands of Google and others just gives them more power over the public at large. Are we OK with that? Is the discussion eve…

I'd say the 2016 election proved how hard we are to manipulate. Hillary lost despite spending more and having nearly the entire media (with only a few exceptions like Fox) on her side.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#127

Post by mrep »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #92
DeepYogurt wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pull money out at an ATM and pay for things with cash I guess. Not great, but it's an option.

As long as you don't travel on a highway where the money will be seized by law enforcement by use of civil asset forfeiture due to your suspiciously carrying cash.

I believe that limit is $10,000 and you never use a credit card when spending that amount of money because the transaction fees are too high.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#128

Post by ocdtrekkie »

donarb wrote: post #117
4ad wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I pay with cash on amazon.com?

You can buy Amazon gift cards with cash anywhere like drug and grocery stores.

However, you have other problems: If you have an account, or even a consistent shipping address, Amazon knows what you're buying. So you'd need to anonymize where you're shipping packages to, the names on those packages, and you'd need to register new Amazon accounts regularly with new email addresses to avoid them profiling your purchasing habits.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#129

Post by village-idiot »

leereeves wrote: post #126
Skunkleton wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The privacy aspects are important, but it is also worth considering the impact this sort of stuff has on society. We like to think of ourselves as semi-immune to advertisement (and manipulation), but we really aren't. The 2016 presidential election proved that. Putting more and more data into the hands of Google and others just gives them more power over the public at large. Are we OK with that? Is the discussion eve…

I'd say the 2016 election proved how hard we are to manipulate. Hillary lost despite spending more and having nearly the entire media (with only a few exceptions like Fox) on her side.

It's hard to say that the media was on her side when they gave billions worth of free coverage to Trump. They also gave her email scandals equal weighting compared to Trump admitting to sexual assault and directly asking a foreign government to hack his opponent on live television.

Re: Google and Mastercard Cut Ad Deal to Track Retail Sales

#130

Post by [deleted] »

village-idiot wrote: post #129
leereeves wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the 2016 election proved how hard we are to manipulate. Hillary lost despite spending more and having nearly the entire media (with only a few exceptions like Fox) on her side.

It's hard to say that the media was on her side when they gave billions worth of free coverage to Trump. They also gave her email scandals equal weighting compared to Trump admitting to sexual assault and directly asking a foreign government to hack his opponent on live television.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN