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

Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 428 posts

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#81

Post by batch12 »

faster wrote: post #77
aasasd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I expect bots on a new unadvertised site within minutes. I've seen it many times. Bots are always scanning, along with script kiddies.

Seems testable by setting up randomized subdomains hosting http and visiting with different browsers. Also, make sure you aren't using Google's DNS services to resolve or managing your domain's DNS through their registrar.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#84

Post by aikinai »

braveyellowtoad wrote: post #67
aasasd wrote: post #43

> 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?

There’s a setting (Web and App Activity) to let Google collect activity on Google properties to use for personalization features.

I’m pretty sure it does not track any activity on non-Google properties.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#85

Post by lazide »

croes wrote: post #28
lordnacho wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I dabbled in ecommerce and while it wasn't a roaring success, people definitely did click the ads and buy the product, and I made a tiny bit of money. My guess is if someone actually knew a few more things than me they could make it work properly.

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.

Having done this before? It is clearly, measurably more effective for most types of businesses (but not all).

It’s easy to spend massive amounts of money on print and other ads with literally zero actual sales coming from it, and everyone you talk to on the print side knows it - but won’t tell you and will happily take your money.

At least with online ads you can test, tune, get your own data, which while not perfect is miles and miles better than you’ll get from other types of ads.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#86

Post by [deleted] »

323 wrote: post #31
cryptonym wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install Firefox and ublock on every single device of friends and family, including mobiles. Reject walled garden not allowing blocking ads.

How ironic... If you browse HN from 10 years ago, you'll see exactly the same advice, except instead of "replace Chrome with Firefox" it was "replace IE with Chrome".

[deleted]

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#87

Post by Digit-Al »

Does anyone else wonder if Page and Brin feel any pangs of guilt over how their company went from "Don't be evil" to such corrupt practises? It really is a classic case study in the journey from apparent idealism to a complete moral vacuum.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#88

Post by lazide »

beefield wrote: post #51
jqpabc123 wrote: post #4

Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?

I dipped my toes to google ads the first time a few months ago. I am definitely not sure I understood it correctly, but I gave up very quickly as I got following impression[1]: 1. Google seems to define what are "relevant ads" for a given search term and if they are not deemed relevant, you are pretty much out of luck. 2. Google defines a minimum price for the auction, and won't show your ads below that even if there…

Google only wants to show ads that people will want to click on and are relevant, or they are wasting their own revenue by wasting the display slot.

And one (but definitely not the most important one per your point #1) is how much someone is willing to pay for the slot.

If you’re paying $100/click, but no one ever clicks on it because it isn’t relevant (like trying to sell real estate to someone trying to find used computer parts or whatever), they’ll still not show the ad.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#89

Post by saimiam »

y4mi wrote: post #80
saimiam wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 42.7% of internet users worldwide (16-64 years old) use ad blocking tools at least once a month. 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 statist…

Did you, by chance, mistake ad blocking for AdBlock - the browser extension?

42.7% of users globally use ad blockers while Adblock has 65 million users. Surely, 42.7% of users is > than 65 million.

Also, I don’t understand why you compared page views to users. It’s probably very uncommon for a user to install an ad blocker but also choose to enable or disable it on specific page views.

Re: Google has a secret deal with FB called “Jedi Blue” that they knew was illegal

#90

Post by lazide »

JasonFruit wrote: post #35
shp0ngle wrote: post #20

Those are claims of an attorney general, right. Not something swore by oath from Google/Facebook. Claims from AGs strictly from conservative states.

Don't try to use political division to redirect people's anger at each other. I'm to the point where I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of anyone who deploys a novel way to recast an issue as partisan. I hope others are equally suspicious.

Doesn’t seem particularly novel - rather pointing out that it seems rather explicitly partisan already?
Post reply on HN