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

Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 354 posts

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#281

Post by mcosta »

imtringued wrote: post #252
theshrike79 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? You do know that Google is a web advertising company first? If they're proposing something, you can be damned sure that it was vetted first by people who know how to use it for ad tracking - because that's literally their…

Google can probably track you without cookies if you use Google Chrome. If they remove alternative methods of tracking they end up eliminating competitors.

> probably

How?

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#282

Post by jsnell »

contravariant wrote: post #37
derekp7 wrote: post #2

So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…

I think you're slightly off on that first one. Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive, in fact I'd argue any decent browser should do it to protect their users' privacy. What is possibly anti-competitive is their proposed alternative. And frankly I'm not sold on the supposed privacy of such an alternative either (which, in order to be functionally different from 3rd party cookies, will have to store persona…

> Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive

The problem is that when it comes to determining what's anti-competitive, yours is not the opinion that matters. According to the article, multiple US states, a US House submicommitee believe it is anticompetitive and now a UK regulator is also investigating whether it is. This is not a hypothetical like you think. It is what the people in power actually are on record about.

Your option 2 does not exist. Just full stop.

So we're left with the idea that every other browser in the world can improve privacy, but not the one that most people use. Do you seriously not see how fucked up that is? Why do you want to build up this garbage narrative about how it's not the fault of the authorities?

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#283

Post by kergonath »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #264
onion2k wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad. The value something provides is relative to other things you might buy instead. If I have an ad budget of $1m, and I can't spend it on targeted ads then I'm going to spend it on the next best thing - if that's non-targeted ads then websites will still get my $1m.

You strangely assume that the advertisement budget will remain constant in a world where advertisement is less effective. The very reason that adverts are then worth less, is because advertisement budgets will go down, given that advertisements provide less return for their money.

You strangely assume that advertising overall budget is related to the effectiveness of advertising.

The reason non-privacy invasive advertising is worth less is that tracking is more effective, so it changes the balance. If tracking becomes less effective, advertising money is more likely to go elsewhere than disappear.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#284

Post by eitland »

bostik wrote: post #276
madrox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.

> This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. Not go away. Just have their ability to invade privacy spayed and neutered. If it makes the industry smaller in aggregate, I'll take that as a beneficial side effect. I wrote the following, as a comment on HN, more than 5 years ago. https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html

Nice summary, bookmarked so I can point to it in future discussions here and elsewhere.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#285

Post by onion2k »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #264
onion2k wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad. The value something provides is relative to other things you might buy instead. If I have an ad budget of $1m, and I can't spend it on targeted ads then I'm going to spend it on the next best thing - if that's non-targeted ads then websites will still get my $1m.

You strangely assume that the advertisement budget will remain constant in a world where advertisement is less effective. The very reason that adverts are then worth less, is because advertisement budgets will go down, given that advertisements provide less return for their money.

You strangely assume that the advertisement budget will remain constant in a world where advertisement is less effective.

It's not an assumption. I've worked in web stuff, including a lot of ad-driven businesses and businesses that buy ads, for a little over two decades. If one technology is removed businesses will spend the money on a different one. They will never step back and say "Oh well, I guess we'll have to spend less on advertising now."

It's even reasonable to believe a reduction in the effectiveness of ads would get companies to spend more on adverts in order to maintain the same level of growth.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#286

Post by tomjen3 »

madrox wrote: post #142

I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…

It would be possible to write an extension to firefox or chrome that switched peoples third-party cookies around, polluting, potentially permanently, the targeting data. It does not seem possible to do this with whatever google is cooking up.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#287

Post by aembleton »

mcosta wrote: post #281
imtringued wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google can probably track you without cookies if you use Google Chrome. If they remove alternative methods of tracking they end up eliminating competitors.

> probably How?

Chrome could provide an API that gives a GUID for that user, or that user session.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#288

Post by jonplackett »

Why would it be so bad to just get rid of targeted advertising full stop?

As a consumer, would I end up just having to watch a lot more ads?

Even if that that is the case, maybe then it would force alternative business models, like some kind of distributed tips for websites you visit.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#289

Post by tomjen3 »

bagacrap wrote: post #194
local_dev wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that we have different definitions of 'abuse' in the case of Google. Of course, Google doesn't sell your data directly to anyone, allow anyone to get your metadata, or allow anyone to view your data. In that sense, I also completely trust Google to be good stewards of my data. That said, while I agree that Google does not 'abuse' my data by giving it to others in any form, Google absolutely does use my da…

Does Netflix with its recommendation engine also "psychologically manipulate" you into watching movies you like?

No, it manipulates me into seeing things it thinks won't make me kill the subscription, just like youtube doesn't suggest a good video, it suggest a video that I am likely to click on.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#290

Post by kergonath »

aww_dang wrote: post #221
madrox wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it isn't good. This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away. However, that's not going to be the outcome. Antitrust scrutiny in this case means making it more fair to third party advertisers...the people who will be hit most by third party cookie disabling. As much as we want to hate on Google, articles like this won't make them move toward more privacy.

>This is HN, and we want the web advertising industry to go away I had a chuckle from this, but many here seem to be taking the statement at face value.

I’d think you’d find a broader consensus around “tracking must die” than “advertising must die”. Though advertising itself is often obnoxious and motivation for large-scale fraud.
Post reply on HN