71–80 of 428 posts
I remember in 2nd grade, a kid brought a note from his parent which was written in a few dozen tiny Post-It notes. The teacher was furious about the improperness of the format of the message. That just came to mind seeing yet another too-fucking-long Twitter thread.
Your vapid comment is even lower effort than this canned response.
> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…
Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about effectiveness of ads but if it's more effective as previous methods and are the huge data collections necessary for the effect.
I'm pretty sure that most previous methods have had their effectiveness significantly reduced by how our society works nowadays. Most non-IT workers still don't use an AdBlocker, so you're actually getting your ads in front of the majority of the population. If you did the same with TV or even worse magazine ads you'd reach only a tiny segment of people, as the quantity of people consuming this kind of content has be…
> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…
Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?
- set up a new empty site, listed absolutely nowhere, on quite dedicated hosting.
- open it in Chrome.
- a couple minutes later, observe Googlebot appearing in the visitor logs of the site.
Lastly, if you go to the ‘My activity’ settings on Google, you can see: “Include Chrome history and activity from sites, apps, and devices that use Google services”, which I guess can still be dissected further. And I have some website visits from 2016 listed there: including Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to use Google Analytics currently (not sure about 2016)—though these could be visits through Google search.
Also, text in the linked tweet directly says that Google tracks users on third-party sites through Chrome.
Also, I believe some Facebook marketing directors resigned not long ago... I wonder if this is related? This has the hallmarks of a news story which keeps on giving...
Let's not blame a whole company for what some small part of it did. Google does a lot of good in this world. They were the first "ethical" tech company, the first tech company with "hacker values" at heart. "do no evil" is still a core value there.
“ They were the first "ethical" tech company,”
What does that even mean? Unless you equate “ethical” with manipulating their dominant social position to shove a worldview you happen to agree with.
Which is a very… narrow understanding of ethics. As well as convenient, and, historically, trite (socially advantaged person agrees w/ the worldview a social institution imposes that reinforces and explains their privilege)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?
Frankly, I'm not sure about the current state of things, seeing as it likely has changed several times in the past few years. However, a) I'm not sure why Goog would want to bother with browser accounts otherwise, and b) my use of Chrome ceased soonish after I had the following experience in the early 2010s: - set up a new empty site, listed absolutely nowhere, on quite dedicated hosting. - open it in Chrome. - a cou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read a lot of companies buy advertising specifically for their own name, because if they don't, a competitor will, and will appear first when someone googles the company name.
You are right - That’s another practice is morally dubious (And imo should be outlawed!) (Not on the purchasing companies side, but on google selling keywords for someone’s brandname which effectively forces companies into bidding for their own name)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?
Doesn't chrome have browsing history sync?
Can't remember, though, if it's always encrypted, or just optionally encrypted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure that most previous methods have had their effectiveness significantly reduced by how our society works nowadays. Most non-IT workers still don't use an AdBlocker, so you're actually getting your ads in front of the majority of the population. If you did the same with TV or even worse magazine ads you'd reach only a tiny segment of people, as the quantity of people consuming this kind of content has be…
While technically you’re right that most people don’t use as blockers, I was surprised to see that it’s as high as 42.7% that this link seems to claim - https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users
That statistic is incredibly misleading. The amount of page views without adblocks is much higher then the insinuated 58%, because they're counting everyone as "using AdBlock" if they've used any device with an AdBlocker installed at any time within a month
And a lot use AdBlock Plus, which also sells your usage statistics and only blocks ads from corps that didn't pay them.