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

Google’s GDPR Workaround

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#181

Post by caiocaiocaio »

cheschire wrote: post #148
stareatgoats wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion I'm inclined to believe you, but sources please. Especially interested if you (or anyone) have anything on Google in this respect.

https://www.reddit.com/r/shills/ It's not going to be entirely legitimate but there's going to be some eye opening items in there for you I suspect.

Remember when Reddit investigated the Boston Marathon bombing and discovered that it was Sunil Tripathi? And then Mr. Tripathi went missing and his body was discovered several weeks later?

Thank God we have Redditors to break the case.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#182

Post by GavinMcG »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #85
amelius wrote: post #64

Targeted ads are already a serious leak of information. If somebody looks over my shoulder and sees the ads presented to me, they can infer things about me. Also, if a malicious actor targets an ad to a group of people, and some of these people buy the advertised items, then the actor can infer things about those people not necessarily related to the items sold.

At my last job the traffic was filtered through a proxy due to FINRA regulations. I’d see Portuguese ads for diabetes medication and there were 2 Brazilian guys in the office. Seemed like a major HIPAA violation to me.

HIPAA only keeps healthcare providers from sharing your information. It's not an omnibus shield for your health information. If Alice tells her coworker Bob that she had diabetes, it's not a HIPAA violation for Bob to tell Charlie.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#183

Post by [deleted] »

philwelch wrote: post #155
Aunche wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no marketing expert, but I doubt that the best way Google can think of to sway public opinion is to call people privacy nuts. Google employs over 100,000 people and even more people work at similar companies like Facebook or buy targeted ads. Many of these people browse Hackernews and get offended if others accuse their livelihoods of being evil.

Every company I've worked at has had an explicit policy of not commenting on that company's business on the internet.

[deleted]

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#184

Post by feu »

philwelch wrote: post #155
Aunche wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no marketing expert, but I doubt that the best way Google can think of to sway public opinion is to call people privacy nuts. Google employs over 100,000 people and even more people work at similar companies like Facebook or buy targeted ads. Many of these people browse Hackernews and get offended if others accuse their livelihoods of being evil.

Every company I've worked at has had an explicit policy of not commenting on that company's business on the internet.

Just because a company has a policy does not mean that employees adhere to that policy.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#186

Post by hobofan »

kart23 wrote: post #151
hobofan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if it's disguised as a private individual (which is the default assumption in discussion forums such as this one). If a company wants to present its views, they can do so via press releases or clearly mark their posts as such (or via verified accounts like on Twitter).

Honest question: under which law? Does anything actually prohibit companies from employing people from going on forums and shilling? I think it's perfectly fine for the third party platform to have a policy forbidding this, but the government enforcing something like this would not be ok.

I didn't answer the question with laws in mind, as the parent wasn't exactly asking a legal question, but what I would guess would be more a moral one.

IINAL, but since we are at the topic of laws, in the last years influencers (at least in Germany) had to fear hefty fines if they didn't label sponsored posts as such, as that counts for covert advertising. As astroturfing could be construed as advertising, that might fall under the same law.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#187

Post by teamspirit »

I think the HN community, and most consumers, tend to look at things from only one angle. Imagine you start work at some small shop that manufacturers widgets for consumers. What would you do when you have to advertise your product? You'd have to turn to Google is a similar company. Are there any real alternatives? (I am asking because I really want to know)

I say this because I am in this position now. I have to figure out how to advertise my company's products and am torn on how to go about it.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#188

Post by buboard »

Kiro wrote: post #185
sam1r wrote: post #32

Just learned about Brave for the first time. Pretty neat stuff.

Only if you're into cryptocurrencies. I wish there was an alternative without the BAT stuff.

BAT is traded in all crypto exchanges. you can instantly exchange it for a stablecoin or even write a script to exchange it to USD every day in e.g. coinbase. I don't see why the fuss

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#189

Post by feanaro »

peterwwillis wrote: post #130
docker_up wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Privacy violations and leaks should be punished with fines and jail time. Period. End of sentence. Just like execs have to personally sign for and are accountable for their financial statements, they should do the same thing with privacy. GDPR sets a very common leveling of the field so it's completely fair now.

"Privacy violation" is a huge, gigantic category of all kinds of things. One kind of privacy violation is completely different from another; some privacy violations are completely harmless, and some are actually directly harmful, and some in between. Giving jail time for any of these is like giving jail time for any kind of "offensive behavior". Maybe someone just didn't like what someone said and called it offensive…

How about systematic, deliberate, deceptive privacy violations in order to increase profits? That seems like a pretty distinct category from the cases you are concerned with.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#190

Post by ta0987 »

ahallock wrote: post #144
amelius wrote: post #64

Targeted ads are already a serious leak of information. If somebody looks over my shoulder and sees the ads presented to me, they can infer things about me. Also, if a malicious actor targets an ad to a group of people, and some of these people buy the advertised items, then the actor can infer things about those people not necessarily related to the items sold.

> If somebody looks over my shoulder and sees the ads presented to me, they can infer things about me. You have to take some personal responsibility, though. If they saw your Youtube recommendations or your Spotify playlist, they'd probably make inferences as well. That porn link in your history you forgot to clear? Be aware of who's watching and browse anonymously if you're concerned.

I've had ads for sketchy shit I googled at home on my personal computer show up on my work computer at the office.
Post reply on HN