301–310 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
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…
Oh, they care about privacy just the way they care about security: valuable and actionable data about you should belong to them. Their security people are top-notch. They guard your data very diligently. If they did not, you would not trust them with intimate details about your life. Your privacy is the same. They will keep your data private *from their competitors*, but they will fully enjoy using it for their own p…
At all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it does. Users now have a unique IP address that is now static. Yes you can rotate your exact IP inside your block but you still keep the same subnet.
That is the promise they sold it on. But, point me to a single ISP that gives a cable subscriber more than one IPv6 address. or a /48 as initially everyone was hopping. ISP profit from NAT. They will never get rid of it. Even if you get a /54 /64 the ad networks will just learn to assign /54 as they do today. But, another point, ipv4 today is barred from being used to form your advertising profile under current legis…
https://support.aa.net.uk/IPv6
"Customers are allocated a /48 block of addresses - this is usually per customer, and so a customer with multiple circuits or sites will have a /64 allocated from the larger /48 block"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My worry is that one day Google may decide that they are going to severely abuse my data. If they build up the idea over the years that they have your data then the jump to abusing it will be much smaller.
Then ask them to delete it all. You, like most people, probably won't ask - because it's extremely convenient to have Google store all of this data. But if you think the upside isn't worth the risk, just ask and they will destroy it all for you. You don't even have to claim you live in the EU or California or somewhere else with at data protection law. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7660719
It’s interesting how people don’t realize Google is basically saving these advertisers from bankruptcy, and yet they’re still complaining. You realize Google could just have done what Apple is doing and completely get rid of all third party cookies with no replacement right? The privacy sandbox API is a lifeline to third party advertisers that otherwise would be completely screwed.
I don't intend to suggest that technical things are completely irrelevant: I'm simplifying drastically (for example, I have faith that providing software that makes decentralisation easier, and does security better will help the problem as I see it). But from my quick scan of the proposed changes from Google, I'm curious why the trackers won't just switch tactics to the next easiest thing? Don't they already do that for people who block third party cookies in fact?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ad-fraud is a disturbing reality. HN's anti-business consensus is a disturbing nightmare.
Any evidence of that? Also, anti-advertising is not anti-business. And the good thing with a nightmare is that it disappears once you open your eyes and see what the reality actually is like.
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…
Dismantle google to smaller companies and separate all the parts (from android, search engine to google earth) away from advertising part. Prevent them from sharing data. Dismantle facebook. Separate it from advertising part.
THEN we can praise Privacy Sandbox. The alternative is to NOT use chrome. Switch to Firefox.
Praising "privacy sandbox" where browser doesnt allow you to logout from your google account doesnt solve anything. I do care if there is 300 inefficient tracking companies in exchange for one that is extremely efficient and can push other 3rd party sites to use it. What do you think will happen?
First, other advertisers will be killed, google would offer its identifier to the sites and suddenly you wont be able to surf anywhere without google account and chrome. Nope, thank you very much for such "privacy sandbox".
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…
Lets do things in some proper order: Dismantle google to smaller companies and separate all the parts (from android, search engine to google earth) away from advertising part. Prevent them from sharing data. Dismantle facebook. Separate it from advertising part. THEN we can praise Privacy Sandbox. The alternative is to NOT use chrome. Switch to Firefox. Praising "privacy sandbox" where browser doesnt allow you to log…
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.