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

231–240 of 294 posts

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

#231

Post by ehnto »

jvannistelrooy wrote: post #211
rrdelaney wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not in the business of selling your data. Google does not sell your data. It’s pretty clear in their privacy policy: https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html Disclaimer: I work at Google.

It's a shame you're getting downvoted. There's nothing wrong with your comment, and it adds a useful argument to the discussion that's going on here. I can only applaud Google employees who want to have a meaningful discussion here, and even disclose that they're working at Google.

It looks like they are back in the green now. I appreciate the dialogue it sparked and I can appreciate it takes a bit of courage to take part in a topic that's contentious toward where you work.

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

#232

Post by ehnto »

icebraining wrote: post #196
rapnie wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And isn't it also the case that, by offering their very elaborate targeting capabilities to advertisers, they still leak your personal data to 3rd parties, though indirectly? After all, the fact that a certain personalized ad appears in your page confirms to the advertiser that you are in their carefully crafted target group.

confirms to the advertiser How would the advertiser know? Google is the one serving the ad.

Tracking referals. It's a key part of ecommerce advertising metrics to keep track of who came from what campaign.

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

#233

Post by leereeves »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #212
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.

Really? Have you ever heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica ?

Hard to find detailed info about them, but what I've found says they had a staff of 40 and a budget of about ten million dollars.

A fraction of a fraction of the 2 billion dollars the Hillary camp spent trying to manipulate the election.

CA is the Clinton camp's boogeyman, much as Correct the Record was for Sanders fans and George Soros is for Trump supporters.

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

#234

Post by mpweiher »

tomcooks wrote: post #230
mpweiher wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's one of the reasons Germans prefer cash. I get products, I give money. The End.

Where in Germany? I have seen Germans using credit/debit cards for 100% of transactions; cash only seems to be more of a garlic-belt thing.

Berlin, for example. When there's a card payment for groceries it tends to be tourists.

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

#235

Post by leereeves »

aslkdjaslkdj1 wrote: post #153
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.

Hillary received far more negative coverage across the media than Trump did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/... >A December report from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy delivered some sobering news for all those investigative reporters who may have supposed that their Trump exclusives were changing the world: None of them were breaking from the…

The actual report is here:

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele...

It notes that:

> Trump’s coverage during the general election was more negative than Clinton’s

Positive coverage of Trump was during the primaries, which is what the Clinton camp wanted, calling him a Pied Piper:

> We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clin...

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

rrdelaney wrote: post #143
ehnto wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be extremely ethical about your factory farm but it's still a factory farm. Google is in the business of utilising your data in the interest of advertising. No matter how you sugar coat it, the core of the business is tracking people and exploiting that data. Are they doing their best to be careful and ethical? It sure seems like it, but that doesn't solve the issue. The free services they and many tech compa…

Google is not in the business of selling your data. Google does not sell your data. It’s pretty clear in their privacy policy: https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html Disclaimer: I work at Google.

[deleted]

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

#237

Post by criddell »

mrep wrote: post #140
CynicalDio wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit is not 10,000. There may be an official number where that starts happening but I have seen it happen (completely anecdotal) with amounts as low as $800.

Care to tell your story because that is totally fucked up if a cop took a measly $800 in cash from you?

In Philadelphia, most cash seizures are under $250.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/10/how-p...

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

#238

Post by bopbop »

Possibly off-topic but it's so sad that the greatest minds of our generation, the previous generation, and the next are all working out how to maximize digital profiling to more accurately sell us things.

Second only to this is the creepy fact that tools like Deepmind are being built with the purpose of furthering these goals - all of the chess/go beating is literally a side line.

I think this is why people like Elon Musk - he may have some socially reprehensible behaviours, but at least his end goals are either benign or helpful to humanity.

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

#239

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

amarant wrote: post #228

privacy concerns aside, does this mean I finally won't get ads for stuff I recently bought anymore? i seem to be getting a lot of "you recently bought a new camera of model xyz, would you like to buy another one?" if they instead recomended memorycards or compatible lenses, that would be a better experience. regarding privacy I've pretty much come to accept that I don't have any. This acceptance has been a great boon…

https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/ McNealy knew, in 1999, what was happening, because he was selling the first commoditized computers to be used for world-wide-scale tracking of user data to the government.

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

#240

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

reacharavindh wrote: post #155

This is precisely why "going cashless" is silly. At least leave the option to those citizens that care about their privacy to be able to pay with cash and not be tracked the heck out of them.

And going all-cash, at this point, is futile. It's the same as the Google email or the Facebook profile conundrums. You can opt out, but they have enough context to infer most everything about your "hole" in their data anyway.
Post reply on HN