Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#241

Post by rbavocadotree » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

kittiepryde wrote: post #70

cryoshon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 billion is peanuts to google. if the fine is low enough that it can be written off as a cost of business, it's too low. effective fines devastate profit margins rather than merely crimping them.

Doing some quick googling, it looks like their quarterly revenue is in the 6-7 billion range. I don't believe 20%ish of revenue is in the peanuts range. Edit: doing some more googling, maybe it's in the 10 billion range; getting better for Google, but I still can't see a company deciding that such a fine is irrelevant.

Q2'19 Revenue was 39.7 Billion. Income was 9.2 Billion.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#242

Post by somesortofsystm » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #8

It's really funny to see that yesterday, I was branded as a 'privacy nut' after the release of Android 10 as I was concerned about the privacy issues that are in Android. Then the Go modules proxy issue around the Go Programming language that raised suspicions about tracking usage statistics around downloading modules turned on by default without any consent and now this. I think there are some folks at Google who ha…

You've got to understand that the military-industrial viewpoint which considers total surveillance to be a "Good Thing" has included the subversion of human intelligence in its own purposes for hundreds of years already..

The same way that the Generals have defeated the western peace movement, big corporations are defeating the resistance.

It should come as no surprise. Those of us who believe in true freedom, need to incorporate a counter-plan into our own purposes, too. Keep getting up and doing what you do.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#243

Post by tgragnato » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

kupiakos wrote: post #167

thebouv wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, they choose to surf to HN. They're not choosing to have targeted ads that share their info around the web and cause someone over their shoulder to infer things about them. That's the point -- we should have that choice. And the default should be "no".

I understand the opt-in rather than opt-out, but does disabling Ads Personalization [1] not do what you're asking? [1]: https://adssettings.google.com/authenticated?hl=en

No, a Google account shouldn’t be required.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#244

Post by la_barba » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

rpastuszak wrote: post #229

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…

Yes, we can do contextual targeting, but after that, what are the ways to improve upon the outcomes (from an advertisers standpoint) without violating privacy?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#245

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

stareatgoats wrote: post #142

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.

> 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.

The Microsoft v. Novell case documented numerous examples and instances of a specific FUD campaign.

The book Merchants of Doubt highlights the practice across decades and industries.

Ralph Nader was subject to corporate smear tactics and surveillance in the 1970s.

The idea that companies would suddenly stop using these tactics the moment they become divinely powerful defies all reason.

Reddit's /r/shills and /r/HailCorporate highlight some modern instances.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#246

Post by aloknnikhil » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

trpc wrote: post #200

Brave is certainly the most shameless tech company I've ever seen in my entire life. Shame on HN to repeatedly allow such a scummy company exploits its ranking algorithm again and again. This kind of systematic exploitation used to happen before with DuckDuckGo, but it seems that Brave took shamelessness to a whole new level.

This makes no sense. Brave's a browser, not a search engine. Are you claiming they manipulate search results? How would they even do that?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#247

Post by rpastuszak » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #169

mfer wrote: post #145

Free startup idea: An ad service that did things simply without any targeted stalking involved.

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.

Also, curious to see how an ad network can guarantee that its creatives don’t misbehave, this is brand safety played on “godlike” (sorry for bad Unreal reference).

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#248

Post by notatoad » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

can somebody explain in simple terms what Brave is actually accusing Google of doing? The article seems to be written in a way that matches the language of the GDPR legistlation, instead of language actually meant to be read by people, and i can't figure out what the "workaround" actually is.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#249

Post by colordrops » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

DrScientist wrote: post #168

Are Google engineers quietly working on alternatives? What is this repo? https://github.com/PolymerLabs/arcs Also there was an interesting story a while back about a clash between advertising and the Fuchsia engineering team https://9to5google.com/2018/07/20/fuchsia-friday-respecting-...

What is Arcs

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#250

Post by rpastuszak » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

hobofan wrote: post #117

intopieces wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should ads rule the web at all? Surely the cleverest engineers to walk the planet can come up with a new way of making money that doesn’t involve psychological manipulation.

> Surely the cleverest engineers to walk the planet can come up with a new way of making money that doesn’t involve psychological manipulation. If they could, they would've already done so. One of the things "the cleverest engineers to walk the planet" would probably need to do is to increase consumers willingness to pay for good content by a factor of ~10 for e.g. online newspapers with quality journalism to be prof…

I disagree, the technical issues are relatively easy to solve, assuming there’s enough budget, buy-in. The issues with these forms of targeting are structural/cultural and AdTech is a surprisingly slow moving ship.

Technical issues are mostly used as an excuse.