Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#221

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #138

derefr wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that those are, more often than not, not paid shills but rather just people who like taking devil’s-advocate sides in arguments “for fun”, i.e. just for the challenge of seeing if they can construct a valid rebuttal to a comment. (I say this because I believe I’ve done this myself more than once, and I know my personality-type isn’t uncommon on HN.)

A simpler explanation is that they are individuals defending against what they perceive as a personal attack via 'tribal' affiliations.

How about people who simply are commenting against what they consider to be bullshit?

I've commented here defending China on some issue a few times in the past. I have no ties with the country (except being on a business trip in Shenzhen for two months), nobody paid or even offered to pay me to do it. It's just I hate bullshit, especially when it becomes popular opinion. Just because China has serious issues doesn't mean it's the Devil and everything it does is evil. It's a country, not unlike Russia or the US.

(Particular things I've been addressing in the past are a) treating a billion+ population as if it was a small country, and b) blaming China for all cheap mass produced crap and its environmental impact, conveniently forgetting that they aren't doing it for fun, but to fulfill orders from Western companies.)

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#222

Post by endorphone » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #215

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

The most interesting thing to me about that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit is how different the narrative is in popular circles vs. in legal circles. It's a little bit like in Rashomon . In popular circles, the story is framed in a way that does make the lawsuit look frivolous. But this is also a case that has made it into the legal textbooks as an example of corporate negligence that's clear-cut enough to use for d…

Are you a lawyer? Because this take is quite remarkable, especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent, coupled with a lot of supporting but not entirely factual claims to justify that position. I feel like the same people who were jeering at the victim just marched over to sainting her and demonizing McDonalds.

The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has to be clear cut.

How McDonalds no longer engages in "corporate negligence": they put pronounced warnings on the cup that it's a dangerously hot substance. That's it. They did not lower the temperature (as is frequently claimed, nor is the temperature at all outside of normal industry standards, yet this is being repeatedly stated throughout this thread -- coffee, brewing with boiling water, is hot). You can get a searingly hot cup of coffee from most quick-serve restaurants today depending upon how freshly it was brewed. This is a case where the solution is more warnings on things.

This case was, however, an example of bad brand management, and perhaps throwing good money after bad for something they could have privately settled early on.

This is certainly not a hill I want to die on, and generally arguing against the prevalent opinion (which is overwhelming the one that you and the GP have expressed, albeit almost always positioning it like it's contrarian) is self-defeating, however this whole case is fascinating in how public perception shifts.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#223

Post by edoceo » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:53 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #174

alkonaut wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These exist. But so long as adivertisers can buy ads with tracking, fraud detection etc, they will. The key to getting reasonable ads back is making the bad ads impossible for advertisers to buy.

Do you have a reference? Looking around I didn't see anything. I might have missed it though.

Maybe Carbon ads?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#224

Post by frogpelt » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #215

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

The most interesting thing to me about that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit is how different the narrative is in popular circles vs. in legal circles. It's a little bit like in Rashomon . In popular circles, the story is framed in a way that does make the lawsuit look frivolous. But this is also a case that has made it into the legal textbooks as an example of corporate negligence that's clear-cut enough to use for d…

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit.

1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's.

2. She spilled it on herself.

3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries.

Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask.

A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider it a frivolous lawsuit because they place almost all of the blame on the woman.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#225

Post by mannykannot » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #221

mannykannot wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simpler explanation is that they are individuals defending against what they perceive as a personal attack via 'tribal' affiliations.

How about people who simply are commenting against what they consider to be bullshit? I've commented here defending China on some issue a few times in the past. I have no ties with the country (except being on a business trip in Shenzhen for two months), nobody paid or even offered to pay me to do it. It's just I hate bullshit, especially when it becomes popular opinion. Just because China has serious issues doesn't…

Yeah - I can recognize a little bit of me in that (the bugged by bad arguments part). The answer is probably e) all of the above.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#226

Post by fmajid » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

priansh wrote: post #71

archy_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google has gotten away with way worse on way more regulated fronts i.e. their antitrust case which slapped them on the wrist. Although I feel that Google has won its position in search, etc by offering a legitimately better product, we need to punish companies that continue to break the law. Success does not put you above the law. If you use your massive profits to absorb fines for breaking the law repeatedly, you s…

I agree! IMO, punishing data abusers can't be solved with data privacy laws. It's a regulation with very little ability to be enforced. In the first place to abuse data you need a lot of it, so really we're looking mostly at big companies with big pockets. The easiest way to attack here is to punish unfair markets and to have stronger antitrust laws. Let's look at the textbook case for privacy with Facebook. Facebook…

Antitrust was neutered in the US by the Chicago School of Economics and the legal theories of Robert Bork (he of the Saturday Night Massacre and failed Supreme Court nomination).

Let's hope Lina Khan and the seeming bipartisan consensus that Big Tech needs taming are the beginning of an antitrust renaissance.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#227

Post by kakwa_ » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #125

NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

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.

I doubt the vast majority of employees would get offended that easily. I work for a tech company providing marketing tools (basically, I help send marketing emails (aka spam)), I like the pay, the overall environment and the technical challenges, but I'm under no illusion that I contribute to the betterment of our societies.

If you see these kind of behavior online, it's almost always people paid to explicitly monitor forums and "protect" a company image.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#228

Post by duxup » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

>But that's not the story that was spread by the shills...

I'm not sure that was the case at the time... specifically there being "paid shills" on the internet.

Concern / outrage over the legal system seems to be a bit of the human condition, I'm not convinced there was a conspiracy required to have folks retell an inaccurate story about that incident.

Sometimes it feels like anything that is perceived to be corporate friendly is called a "shill" as if individuals (mistaken or not) couldn't organically have X opinion.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#229

Post by rpastuszak » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

la_barba wrote: post #206

Is there any way to improve the matching of ads to the viewer without violating their privacy?

Yes! Contextual Targeting (target based on what I am reading) could work, although the industry seems to be clinging to Behavioural Targeting (target based on who I am). This will become more important for Open Web due to the 3p cookie constraints, regulatory changes etc..., but Google/Amazon/FB are less likely to be impacted.

In fact Contextual Targeting predates the current approaches, but it became less important once advertises/adtech companies started preaching the thinly veiled idea of using behaviourism to trigger conversions/less products.

Changes like this are slow to introduce due to technical and (mainly) structural/cultural issues in the Advertising Industry, but that’s a topic for an entire essay/series of blog posts.

Source: I work in AdTech and deal with privacy/the ethical impact of programmatic, content monetisation models. Opinions obv. mine.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#230

Post by oneepic » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:59 PM UTC

NullPrefix wrote: post #49

>I was branded as a 'privacy nut' Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. They call them something like public advocates, doesn't change the idea though.

...is this supposed to prove or suggest that Google does the same?