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

Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

vivaldi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 271 posts

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#211

Post by matheusmoreira »

jefftk wrote: post #126
matheusmoreira wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it collects any data at all, it's surveillance. Anything else is a loophole.

Let's say a streaming music service collects information on what you have listened to and how long. Is that surveillance? What if they use it to back a page where you can see what you've been listening to recently? If they start recommending new artists based on your listening history?

Nothing inherently wrong with those features. The problem is some corporation owns this data, not us. It would be fine if it was some local software instead.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#212

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

kerkeslager wrote: post #208
tqi wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an unworkable idea. What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad? Is a sponsored social media post? A celebrity endorsement? Free products given to athletes in the hopes that they will be seen using it? Logos on clothing? Is the standard just "I know it when I see it"? Also (in the US) it almost certain runs afoul of the First Amendment.

> What is an ad, exactly? You cite Consumer Reports as a model - they have affiliate links on their reviews. Is that an ad? I agree that Consumer Reports does include some advertising, but it's not necessary for their business model to work--consumer reports predated the internet by over 50 years, so it certainly predated affiliate links. At least at some points their primary source of income was subscriptions, and j…

> This argument is just throwing FUD about implementation details: you're not responding in any way to my statement of the problem, or presenting any fundamental criticism of my proposed solution.

On the contrary, these are fundamental questions that would need convincing answers for this discussion to move much further beyond what you have already articulated.

Your statement of the problem concludes that "advertising is just never a good thing, in any context." Your proposed solution is to ban all advertising, allow "some companies to go under", but "good riddance" to them.

These are extreme views, supported only by your fond memories of Ye Olde Internet, with little substance for us all to discuss.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#213

Post by [deleted] »

dalbasal wrote: post #119

Not a ton of depth in the letter itself, but I like the angle they take. It's not all about privacy or data security. " In addition to the clear privacy issues caused by surveillance-based advertising, it is also detrimental to the business landscape. " " In the surveillance-based advertising model, a few actors can obtain competitive advantages by collecting data from across websites and services and dominant platfo…

[deleted]

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#214

Post by crazypython »

1. Web content creators are funded by advertisers.

2. Tracking-based advertising generates more clicks than non-tracking based advertising.

3. Generating more clicks gives web content creators a bigger budget to create, resulting in more web content.

Therefore: It's not surveillance-based advertising if all data is stored and processed locally in a way the website cannot read– ideally with a free and open source machine learning system. Like FLoC, but implemented better in a way the site cannot read.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#215

Post by stubish »

tomc1985 wrote: post #210
squiggleblaz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simpler answer is to just ban it. The law doesn't need to be technically detailed or envision every single technological adaptation: it just needs to be sufficient for a judge to be able to recognise it when a prosecutor describes it and a defence lawyer attempts to pull the wool over their eyes. It needs to be focused on outcomes. Once banned, Google and Facebook will submit. They will attempt to lobby against t…

I'm all for big game hunting but taking down Google would be a gutpunch to every Gmail user ever

Gmail can still exist without Google in its current form, or without Google entirely. It is likely one of those services that does not require surveillance to remain profitable, and competitors would be falling over themselves to claim the data and domain names if Google claimed otherwise. Losing integration to other Google services would likely win more hearts than gutpunch users.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#216

Post by dredmorbius »

kerkeslager wrote: post #86

Frankly, I don't think this goes far enough: "Ban advertising" would be better. Almost every problem with the internet right now is caused by advertising if you dig through the chain of causality. From social media patterns that addict you to conflict and conspiracy, to popups, adware and spam, to constant attacks on our attention even when we're driving and could literally kill someone with inattention, to spreading…

Blanket prohibitions are ... difficult creatures.

Highly progressive taxation seems to me a better practice, along with specific prohibitions and/or penalties. I'd floated this suggestion about six weeks ago:

Taxation will reduce overall amounts of advertising. Taxes raise costs. Quantities of price-elastic goods or activities decrease if taxed. Ergo: an advertising tax results in less advertising.

Individually targeted advertising is regulable through both practice and rights. Government can require or restrict technology. Government can give rights (of privacy, of control over personal information), or remove them (the ability of third parties to exchange, sell, or otherwise utilise personal information other than at the express direction of the subject of that information, say).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27219556

(I agree largely with your characterisation of advertising. I do believe that there are certain categories and types which are less overtly socially harmful. Those largely represent small corners of the present advertising market.)

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#217

Post by jefftk »

Jonsvt wrote: post #206
jefftk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google Ads will still follow people around the web through latent signals I'm not sure what you mean by this? Google Ads has committed "once third-party cookies are phased out, we will not build alternate identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor will we use them in our products." -- https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/a-more-privacy-fir... > even if wrapped in something like FLOC FL…

The point is the FLOC is surveillance as well. You are still profiling users. This has got to stop. https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...

I agree FLoC is tracking (though not at the individual level). The question we've been discussing, however, is the effect on competition in particular: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27763345

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#218

Post by Jonsvt »

tomc1985 wrote: post #210
squiggleblaz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simpler answer is to just ban it. The law doesn't need to be technically detailed or envision every single technological adaptation: it just needs to be sufficient for a judge to be able to recognise it when a prosecutor describes it and a defence lawyer attempts to pull the wool over their eyes. It needs to be focused on outcomes. Once banned, Google and Facebook will submit. They will attempt to lobby against t…

I'm all for big game hunting but taking down Google would be a gutpunch to every Gmail user ever

I think this is one of the big misinformation being propagated. That somehow you would not be able to get GMail or other services if Google is not allowed to collect information. The reality is that Google did just fine before they did surveillance-based ads and they can do just fine when they stop doing them as well. There are other ad systems and Google can do just fine using normal ads.

That being said, there are great alternatives to GMail that you can use, both free and paid. FastMail, Proton Mail, Tutanote and Vivaldi.net mail are just a few options you might want to try out.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#219

Post by jefftk »

Jonsvt wrote: post #207
jefftk wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the browsers have said that they consider general-purpose cross-site tracking to be deprecated, not just cookies. They are working on removing other forms of linking users across sites, including the browser cache, link decoration, and fingerprinting.

And some of them, such as Google, are working on FLOC... This has got to stop now.

Creating more private alternatives to cross-site ad tracking is a project that most of the major browsers are working on. In addition to Chrome, Edge has https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Par... and Safari has https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#220

Post by Jonsvt »

Jonsvt wrote: post #206
jefftk wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google Ads will still follow people around the web through latent signals I'm not sure what you mean by this? Google Ads has committed "once third-party cookies are phased out, we will not build alternate identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor will we use them in our products." -- https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/a-more-privacy-fir... > even if wrapped in something like FLOC FL…

The point is the FLOC is surveillance as well. You are still profiling users. This has got to stop. https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...

FLOC is tracking in your browser. How is that not individual? Not that it matters. Tracking is wrong whether you are able to track an individual or not. This is not just about privacy.
Post reply on HN