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

361–370 of 629 posts

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#361

Post by vasilipupkin »

mtgx wrote: post #325
pornel wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly harmless to spill regular drinkable-temperature coffee on yourself, so she took appropriate level of precaution (i.e. very little) for that reasonable assumption. She shouldn't be to blame even if she showered in the coffee. To bring it back on topic: when web users are told "we care about your privacy", they should be able to take it at face value. When the company then weasels out of the headline promis…

Yes, once again, when an issue is systemic (in this case, all coffees by McDonalds are super-hot), the user is not to blame but the vendor/system designer. It reminds me of that recent case of 90%+ passengers "putting the oxygen masks wrong" because they are "idiots" - an opinion that seemed to be shared by a lot of people even here on HN, but even more so on Twitter. https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/10…

Well, when you purchase coffee at McDonald’s and you see that it’s super hot, you can return it or cool it down by blowing on it before drinking it. Not commenting on the legal case, but it seems nuts to blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on yourself, no matter how you slice it.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#362

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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.

I regularly am discussing Google's business with Googlers on here. Some of them disclose in the post, some of them disclose on their HN profile. Many do not, and calling them on it is generally discouraged, but it's usually not super hard to figure out or prove.

There are definitely some acting as spokespeople (even if they claim otherwise), but there are also quite a few who are just, you know, incredibly biased fans of their employer, who like to defend them on topics unrelated to their job.

But when a tech company has 100,000 employees, it's not particularly surprising to see a good number of them on a tech forum. ;)

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#363

Post by marcosdumay »

endorphone wrote: post #222
mumblemumble wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Normally coffee is not brewed on boiling water, and losses a lot of heat during the brewing process. So, McDonalds' coffee (and the ones on many more stores) is significantly hotter than normal coffee.

But recently brewed coffee is dangerous anyway, it's quite stupid to hold it with one's legs. Still, I don't know about the details, and even the defamation she suffered might be enough for the punishment.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#365

Post by hobofan »

jodrellblank wrote: post #316
inlined wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. I’m a professional who had signed off on legal documents. Why would the buck not stop at me? That’s the way it works in architecture and other professions.

Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I _think_ this rule is intended to discourage "Have an upvote" (and similar) comments, commonly seen on Reddit.

Reminding fellow readers/commenters to not just shallowly dismiss comments once in a while doesn't do much harm, and actually lead me to reply to the parent.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#366

Post by colordrops »

Kiro wrote: post #260
colordrops wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. BAT is opt-in and isn't even mentioned when you install the browser.

I would argue that the whole reason for Brave's existence is BAT. It's their business model and I'm surprised that HN normally hates cryptocurrencies with a passion but gives Brave a pass.

First, HN isn't some hive mind that takes stances as a collective. Second, cryptocurrencies are a technology and can be used for good or bad. To hate them is like hating linked lists. Third, there is plenty of (undeserved) hate for Brave here on HN. Lastly, "the whole reason for their existence" is a subjective judgement. As long as they remain open source and don't force me to use their cryptocurrency, I am completely fine with it.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#367

Post by TeMPOraL »

zajio1am wrote: post #356
TeMPOraL wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What should do they do, send a surveyor to your house? Not use data from a mechanism that's controversial with some of the user base to drive decisions? Reach out and ask people , instead of asking their machines? > Sound decision making requires metrics. If you opt-out of metrics, you don't get to participate in decisions. Sound decision making requires some kind of metrics and also sound reasoning . It doesn't me…

> Reach out and ask people, instead of asking their machines? So you would have statistics biased by not accounting for people not bothered to answering these questions instead of not accounting for people not using popcon?

You'd have statistics biased towards people caring to express their opinions. You also wouldn't mistakenly assume that because something isn't regularly used it's also not needed.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#368

Post by panpanna »

rat9988 wrote: post #360
TheArcane wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU should raise the 4% annual turnover rule to 10%. Google doesn't seem to be deterred

There is a reason they didn't. They fear the US government's reaction. Edit: Why downvote? Do you really think that the US government will stay silent if the European Union threatens with such fines? Political tensions are something you take heavily into account.

EU should ignore the fines this time and start an "information campaign" regarding behavior of Google and others.

I bet that hurts Google 10 times more.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#370

Post by 0xffff2 »

eitland wrote: post #343
0xffff2 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True and irrelevant. If you're displaying ads based on site content, you are matching ads to the site content, not to the viewer.

It is actually relevant because they are matching the ads to the user, only it happens by a proxy variable which is the site you are visiting.

The original question was "Is there any way to improve the matching of ads to the viewer without violating their privacy?"

Your answer is that we should match something other than the user, that happens to correlate with user interests. That is, by definition, not matching ads to viewers.

Post reply on HN