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

91–100 of 173 posts

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

#91

Post by falcolas »

gsnedders wrote: post #70
falcolas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ads don't provide money until clicked on. So there's no money lost by implementing ad blocking. The only real thing lost is the potential that someone will click on the ad.

That depends on whether the ad is sold based on conversions, clicks, or views. All three models are in use on the web.

Remember, we're discussing a blog here. CPM, with rates in the $2 range, are not going to provide anything resembling reasonable revenue - let alone profit - for a blog post.

There are notable exceptions to this for bloggers who can get hundreds of thousands of views on a regular basis - but most people are lucky to get a thousand unique views.

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

#92

Post by drewmol »

bo1024 wrote: post #60
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?

from Article 4:

(7) ‘controller’ means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of such processing are determined by Union or Member State law, the controller or the specific criteria for its nomination may be provided for by Union or Member State law;

(8) ‘processor’ means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;

Generally speaking, site X is the data controller and the third party JS providers are the data processors. GDPR applies to both, with the controller being the party primarily responsible for ensuring compliance.

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

#94

Post by falcolas »

brettz wrote: post #69
falcolas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ads don't provide money until clicked on. So there's no money lost by implementing ad blocking. The only real thing lost is the potential that someone will click on the ad.

Yes they do, CPM vs CPC.

CPM, for a personal blog, is going to provide negative revenue (the cost in time and upkeep of the advertising platform and integration). Do blog posters really think that alienating someone over their decision on what to render in their browsers is worth that 2/10th of a penny?

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

#95

Post by Arainach »

tinco wrote: post #44
Rjevski wrote: post #2

I would not trust any opt-out offered by a company who's bottom line is directly dependent on violating people's privacy. The only opt-out that can be trusted is one that does send any network requests to the stalking company until consent is given. That's the same reason why you wouldn't want to ask an alcoholic to guard a warehouse full of vodka at night, as you'd probably find a few empty bottles the next day. Sam…

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…

Don't frame it as "build an illegal feature". Frame it as "build a feature" and hand it off to an enthusiastic junior dev eager to please their manager and get ahead. At a previous employer, I had a manager ask if, when implementing certain functionality, I could do it in such a way that it coincidentally broke third party tools attempting to interact with the component. They were very careful to phrase this in an offhand manner and never discuss it over legally discoverable mediums (only face to face). The entire matter seemed dubious and I certainly didn't want my name associated with such a move in the source control history, so I never implemented that request, it was never mentioned again, and nothing ever came of it - but a different dev might have jumped much faster at it.

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

#96

Post by carlmr »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #74
contravariant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

yes, VW was small fines. GDPR, especially for something like what is being suggested here, would be astronomical. Not saying nobody will do it, because humans are stupid. to quote vincent vega re: the keying of his car, it would be worth having them do it, just to catch them doing it.

>VW was small fines

https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/29/investing/volkswagen-diesel...

$30 billion is not small fines, add to that that it isn't over yet. It's already more than what BP paid for their oil spill, and the oil spill is thousand times worse in terms of its environmental effect.

At least in this article it's the biggest fine for any corporate crime levied.

https://www.alternet.org/economy/17-worst-corporate-crimes-2...

There are very few fines that have been higher. Hyundai only paid $100 million for their emission scandal one year before, with not much fanfare: http://time.com/3555696/hyundai-kia-fined-carbon-emissions/

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

#97

Post by drewmol »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #26

I would be willing to load ads if I didnt have to see them. I’m happy. Content provider gets ad shown so they are happy. Advertiser doesn’t get anything, but I don’t care.

You can please everyone with AdNauseam ;-)

https://adnauseam.io/

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

#98

Post by wbl »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #35
wbl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked on this a while ago at Mozilla. There was a presentation at ACM CCS '16 on what we did. Unfortunately the effort was discontinued, but we definitely solved a lot of the technical issues.

That sounds really cool, is there any documentation (papers, presentations, code) available of that effort?

http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2980000/2978407/p1591-green.... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G62JD9fdxNM

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

#99

Post by [deleted] »

lotu wrote: post #73
gaius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their bandwidth bills would be a lot cheaper if they weren’t sending megabytes of JS for every kb of actual content

Bandwidth isn’t the main cost of running a website you also have to pay people to make content. Compared to that bandwidth is free.

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by mtgx »

zzzcpan wrote: post #77
mtgx wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. Google probably wouldn't build an outright illegal feature. However Google would and has built features that are at the very least in legal grey areas/haven't been explicitly regulated. Thing like the WiFi tracking feature, bypassing safari's cookie restrictions, tracking android users' location even when they opted out of that or had their GPS feature turned off, and so on. They did and will do that ag…

Google was fined billions for outright illegal practices and is mostly concerned about power, not illegality. Furthermore, in hierarchical structures people only care what those above them think. "Illegality" of the feature is something for lawyers, not them. At best they rely on morals, but even that is screwed by perks, incentives, the environment they work in, peer pressure, management, corporate propaganda, etc.…

I dont think Google was fined billions over privacy violations, just antitrust ones and only in the EU. In the US Eric Schmidt's constant lobbying to Obama got them off the hook for the antitrust investigation even though the FTC staff investigating their violations recommended antitrust action against Google.
Post reply on HN