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

Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

fundingchoices.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 173 posts

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#51

Post by probably_wrong »

In their example, under "Gather consent seamlessly", their example shows "Yes" and "Other Options". Now, I haven't yet read the GDPR in detail, but I was under the impression that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A quick search returns:

> The ICO also said that, while "GDPR does not specifically ban opt-out boxes," that method of communication is "essentially that same as pre-ticked boxes, which are banned"

If this is correct, using the product as shown on the screenshot (and as used by several websites) is in violation of the GDPR.

I wonder if Google will pick up your legal defense costs if you get sued for using their product.

(Edit: I tried to find answers to these questions, but apparently the only way is contacting my Google representative, which I don't have)

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#52

Post by magicalhippo »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #25
apinstein wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the big idea I always pitched at hackathons (like startup weekend). I think it’s a great idea. 100% opt-in ads. My tagline was “a sufficiently relevant ad is indistinguishable from content.” It’s meant to be aspirational. The idea is that if you are looking to buy something, awareness of choices or information about that choice should be so valuable that it’s considered to be a benefit by the user. It’s basic…

Unless I specifically seek them out, I have no interest in learning about new products or services ever. Thus, an ad would never be relevant enough to be content for me.

Well I do. Sometimes there's a product or a service that can provide value in a way I haven't thought about, or I haven't come around to specifically seek out yet. I don't mind seeing ads for such things.

What I do mind is seeing ads for stuff I don't care about at all, and if the ads get in the way of what I'm doing.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#53

Post by shakna »

cirenehc wrote: post #40
dx87 wrote: post #27

Gotta love their choice of wording, "recover lost revenue from ad blocking users", like blocking ads is equivalent to stealing money from the site owner.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

I understand your issues... But I'm downloading your code, how it is displayed, and whether I run it your way is up to me - I already requested it, and your server fulfilled the request. If you wanted contractual obligations, they need to happen before you hand over the content.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#54

Post by celere »

danso wrote: post #11

I appreciate that Google appears to have reached out to local newspaper sites (qctimes.com, napavalleyregister.com), for Contributor. But if I were a major content publisher, the relatively small and mostly non-notable list of current Contributor sites [0] would make me think that Google isn't highly invested in this project. Which is not a good first impression considering that many people think that Google is too q…

Funding Choices and Contributor seems to be good choice for small-to-medium blog/news site operators. Compared to Flattr and others I see the potential here to fund a news outlet entirely with this services.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#55

Post by tinco »

badestrand wrote: post #47
tinco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who is going to build that illegal feature into Google's services? And how much are that person, and the other persons that know about it, going to be paid for them to not be a liability? Maybe I'm naieve, but I feel building automated law breaking systems is not something corporations do. I have no doubt individuals within corporations break laws whenever they feel like they can get away with it, but leaving tra…

> Maybe I'm naieve, but I feel building automated law breaking systems is not something corporations do Did you already forget the VW diesel scandal? That was exactly that - a huge corporation systematically breaking the law with lots of people even in the highest ranks aware of and supporting it.

Well yeah, and it was ridiculously dumb, lots of people go to jail and big fines were levied. I suppose that you have a point and corporations might do it. At the same time I like to believe it's just not worth it for them.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#56

Post by celere »

wffurr wrote: post #16
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, I believe they actually did already shut this down once before. I think this is a revival of it: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-contributor-progr...

Yes, they re-launched contributor as a "opt out of ads on a per site basis" instead of the old global "show me kittens or blank space instead of all Google ads". The reasoning given was it was a " better experience" to have no ads on a page at all instead of a mix of Google ad kittens and non-Google regular ads. Fine, but there are only two sites that support it, so it's fairly useless. Maybe Funding Choices will mak…

Here's a list of about 20 sites using Contributor: https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/7324995?hl=en&...

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#57

Post by tinco »

throwaway6789 wrote: post #49
tinco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who is going to build that illegal feature into Google's services? And how much are that person, and the other persons that know about it, going to be paid for them to not be a liability? Maybe I'm naieve, but I feel building automated law breaking systems is not something corporations do. I have no doubt individuals within corporations break laws whenever they feel like they can get away with it, but leaving tra…

I take great care to separate my browsing sessions. Still I find YouTube recommendations on my main account on topics that I watched on another machine in my home network. My typical setup involves: 1. Virtualbox VM restored to a snapshot after each usage (browser completely clean, never uses my main Google accounts here) 2. Firefox on main machine with clear all cookies set, ublock origin. Rarely logs into my main G…

Maybe you ended in the "people that put too much effort in anti-tracking" bin, and you get recommendations for those kinds of people :p

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#58

Post by contravariant »

tinco wrote: post #55
badestrand wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe I'm naieve, but I feel building automated law breaking systems is not something corporations do Did you already forget the VW diesel scandal? That was exactly that - a huge corporation systematically breaking the law with lots of people even in the highest ranks aware of and supporting it.

Well yeah, and it was ridiculously dumb, lots of people go to jail and big fines were levied. I suppose that you have a point and corporations might do it. At the same time I like to believe it's just not worth it for them.

I can find a few small fines, but as far as I can tell nobody went to jail for that one.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#59

Post by Terretta »

probably_wrong wrote: post #51

In their example, under "Gather consent seamlessly", their example shows "Yes" and "Other Options". Now, I haven't yet read the GDPR in detail, but I was under the impression that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A quick search returns: > The ICO also said that, while "GDPR does not specifically ban opt-out boxes," that method of communication is "essentially that same as pre-ticked boxes, which are banned"…

Having cleared all cookies recently, I'm re-encountering all these dialogs. They've gotten cagier.

Anecdotally, a third of these cookie dialogs are violating those principles, either preselecting all third party advertisers, or claiming all 60+ third parties are necessary for the functionality of the site so Allow or Go Away. Or having only one OK/Agree button.

It's not just little guys. Slate.com for example:

Slate’s Use of Your Data

By clicking “Agree,” you consent to Slate’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and the use of technologies such as cookies by Slate and our partners to deliver relevant advertising on our site, in emails and across the Internet, to personalize content and perform site analytics. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information about our use of data, your rights, and how to withdraw consent.

[Agree]

https://slate.com/gdpr?redirect_uri=%2F%3Fvia%3Dgdpr-consent...

The privacy policy generally says you're welcome to go opt out of each individual third party then delete their individual cookies from your browser, beat yourself up.

Slate for example, says, "You may choose whether to receive interest-based advertising by submitting opt-outs..."

The justification appears to be "EU doesn't tell us what to do":

"Please note that the Services are directed towards users who reside in the United States. By using the Services, you consent to the collection, storage, processing, and transfer of your information in and to the United States, or other countries and territories, pursuant to the laws of the United States. Some of these countries may not offer the same level of privacy protection as your own."

This Privacy Policy also features dynamic legalese:

"Slate tracks when EU readers grant consent for Slate to collect and process data through the use of an identifying cookie on your browser. The browser through which you are currently viewing Slate does not currently have such an identifying cookie. If you are an EU reader this means that Slate is not collecting or processing data from your current browser session."

https://slate.com/privacy

// I am currently reading from EU -- a good time to clear your cookies.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#60

Post by bo1024 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #51

In their example, under "Gather consent seamlessly", their example shows "Yes" and "Other Options". Now, I haven't yet read the GDPR in detail, but I was under the impression that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A quick search returns: > The ICO also said that, while "GDPR does not specifically ban opt-out boxes," that method of communication is "essentially that same as pre-ticked boxes, which are banned"…

This hits another big point I've been wondering about GDPR. If site X has third-party JS from Google, Facebook, or so on, who does GDPR apply to? Is site X the one collecting the data, or is it the third party?
Post reply on HN