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

Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

chromium.woolyss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 902 posts

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#401

Post by pqs »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #381
dxdm wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our ineffectual administration It always saddens me to see EU citizens talk in absolutes like that. With some exceptions, and by comparison, we have some of the best governments in the world, and, for all its faults, the EU has been a huge net positive. Perpetuating these overly negative stereotypes just aids populists in replacing our good governance with the other kind that we see all over the world.

> It always saddens me to see EU citizens talk in absolutes like that. Unfortunate there are many European enemies of the EU. It doesn't even have anything to do with EU administration: EU can't prevent Google trying to trick users into leaking their privates data and habits. Not at least until Google reveals their plans on how they're gonna do it. On a final note: we accepted two non-democratic countries in EU, Pola…

One can argue that the EU itself is rather undemocratic, as the Parliament does not hold much power, and there isn't a clear separation between executive and legislative, as the Commission and the Council of Ministers both participate in the process.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#402

Post by krageon »

ThalesX wrote: post #372
saiya-jin wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most often such comments come from eastern parts of Europe, where nationalistic movements have a nice resurgence in past few years. A prime example is Czech republic, a very euro-skeptical nation despite all the benefits it brought them. Hungary would be another one. That being said, as somebody coming from east too and seeing clearly all the direct and indirect benefits of EU, its far from ideal. The whole concept o…

> Most often such comments come from eastern parts of Europe, where nationalistic movements have a nice resurgence in past few years. I wish people would stop attributing our attitude to nationalistic resurgences. I’m a globalist and think nationalism and regionalism should be relics of the past and I keep getting put in the same box as nationalists because I am Euro-realist. With this frame of mind I think the EU po…

> Euro-realist

It's not realism to believe the EU can't exist within or facilitate your idealised frame of reference (assuming it makes sense and is something people should want), it's just negativity.

> I wish people would stop attributing our attitude to nationalistic resurgences.

Quite frankly nationalistic resurgence is the #1 indicator for "euro realism", so this is a very reasonable stance to take.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#403

Post by raspberry1337 »

jsiepkes wrote: post #376
raspberry1337 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a huge net positive A huge net positive for buisness, that's for sure. There are currently over 25,000 lobbyists in Brussels and Berlin [1]. As for the citizens, that is up to debate, and highly individual. Truckers in Sweden, for example, that currently find themselves competing with truckers from all over europe who also fill the tank in countries with far cheaper gas, cant really be said to enjoy positive gain fr…

> who also fill the tank in countries with far cheaper gas So we are talking here about inter-country transport, right? Because I don't think it's very econimical to fill up your gastank in Poland if your driving deliveries locally inside Sweden? That will probably not be a net-win. If you are a Swedish company importing from for example Poland you could always let a Polish transport company handle the transport. The…

I'm not a trucker, so you would have to ask them about the gas they complain about. But there are others more obvious issues mentioned by the unions by international trucking - they have to compete with companies utilizing slave labour and sometimes even cases of trafficking. Hence my point that benefits of the EU is highly individual. Many have surely won, such as large companies, and many have lost.

>So what did the EU do that made cheaper gas more of an competitive advantage then it was before?

Enable all european truckers to work anywhere.

>BTW gas prices are something that Swedens goverment themselve handle...

I don't see how this is relevant to anything said previously, and yes, that is quite obvious.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#404

Post by raspberry1337 »

zambal wrote: post #379
raspberry1337 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a huge net positive A huge net positive for buisness, that's for sure. There are currently over 25,000 lobbyists in Brussels and Berlin [1]. As for the citizens, that is up to debate, and highly individual. Truckers in Sweden, for example, that currently find themselves competing with truckers from all over europe who also fill the tank in countries with far cheaper gas, cant really be said to enjoy positive gain fr…

I'm not sure this is a convincing example of policy that results in a net negative? It seems to be a positive for truck drivers from other parts of Europe. Maybe for most EU citizens too if it leads to lower transport prices?

Hence the word 'individually'. Great for truckers from poorer countries with weak or no unions sure, and great for companies that get cheaper trucking.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#405

Post by qwerty456127 »

This looks like an opportunity for antivirus developers. Now as antivirus software has became less relevant the talents can be reallocated to apply heuristic and signature-based code analysis to protecting web users against tracking. I would gladly pay money to a trustworthy company to sanitize my traffic blocking every bit except what I really need to be there.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#406

Post by FeepingCreature »

drusepth wrote: post #237
FeepingCreature wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asserting that it is your current opinion that slavery was morally OK in the US, because it was morally accepted at the time? (Warning: this is a trap question, do not answer yes, the only socially accepted answer is no)

Not the guy you're responding to, but this trap question seemed like you either misunderstood their comment or are unintentionally putting words in their mouth. Their comment explicitly subscribes to a form of ethical relativism [1], which argues that there is no universal concept of "morally right" or "morally wrong", and that morals are determined solely by the society judging them at that time. [1] >Ethical relati…

Right, I'm saying moral relativism ends up in inacceptable or at least widely not accepted answers as soon as you apply it to charged topics. It sounded to me like they were making a relativism argument, and I wanted to highlight this - to give them the opportunity to avoid saying that slavery is acceptable (even in the past) - while at the same time warning them against walking into this position unintentionally.

I'm not saying it should be unacceptable, relativism is an interesting position with some upsides, such as that the future, if relativist, will not judge us harshly for our undoubtedly manifold transgressions by their standard, but "slavery was okay actually" is still something that one should, if at all, say with deliberate intent, not as an accidental implication.

edit: To clarify my own view, I think that inasmuch as we now think that slavery was wrong, we have gained understanding - that slavery was just as wrong at the time, at least that it followed from moral precepts that were already believed, but this fact was obscured by the social and economic reality that people lived in. Evidence for this would be that people were already arriving at the view that slavery was wrong based on reasoning that matches, in hindsight, our own.

A good candidate for a similar moral mistake that we'd be making is, of course, the meat industry - meat is tasty and vegetarianism is effort. But I would expect the future to condemn meat-eating for the same reasons that vegetarians today condemn meat-eating, indicating moral progress (or at least technological progress reducing moral effort) rather than value drift.

I'm not sure that morality always works that way, to be clear, but I do think it works that way in these specific cases.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#407

Post by krageon »

mlatu wrote: post #323
boudin wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame the lawmaker for the bad behaviour of people who are trying to bypass it... If you're on such website, you know that the website itself shouldn't be trusted.

the laws are teethless if they are not enforced, and playing hot potatoe with responsibilities like is the case with Max Schrems makes it all laughable. dont blame the lawmaker for participants bad behaviour? well, ok. allright. but i DO blame the responsible authorities for licking the misbehaving participants' boots

> if they are not enforced

Ok, but they are enforced. So this entire line of reasoning makes absolutely zero sense. If your demand is that every infraction is enforced immediately, then you will be disappointed. Such things take time.

> i DO blame the responsible authorities for licking the misbehaving participants' boots

There's a single European country that does this (Ireland) and it is definitely a stain on an otherwise healthy situation in terms of enforcement. It is not fair to attribute their willful ignorance in the face of plain bribing to the rest of the enforcement agencies.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#408

Post by npteljes »

nirse wrote: post #399
npteljes wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this crazy? Server administrators could have done, and have done anything on their side of the code. Nothing changed on this front since the invention of the HTTP request.

Previously GA and GTM would share private data with Google but we could at least see requests going out to google, so if you had rejected data being shared with 3rd parties or hadn't been asked at all (think GDPR) you could see that the website was breaking the law. This clever solution from Google hides it from us, consumers, so that we will just have to trust that if a website doesn't ask if it may share our detail…

No we couldn't see the requests, and that's because we couldn't see what the backend does, which was always the case since the inception of remote procedure calls.

To illustrate my point, here's a Stackoverflow question from nearly 10 years ago: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11795477/using-google-an...

Whatever trust was ever there, it was false.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#409

Post by eru »

mtsr wrote: post #335
eru wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about this notion of the 'good of society'. If you believe that the 'good of society' is not what voters want, why bother with democracy at all? (Slightly besides the point: I actually do agree that people behave like idiots at the ballot booth and don't know what is good for them in this context. Luckily, people tend to be much more savvy when voting with their wallets or their feet. And as a society we…

I’m not saying it’s not what voters want , I’m saying they’re not going to vote for it. There’s a difference. The average voter has a fairly limited horizon in terms of what they see and understand about what’s good for society. And in a democracy you elect representatives because they’re supposed to have a wider horizon and more in depth knowledge, in part because they’re on average smarter than the average voter an…

Well, I was born in East Germany and grew up there. Later I decided to vote with my feet, and pay my taxes in Singapore instead. Much better value for my tax money here---both lower taxes and better government services.

Btw, I'm not saying people are perfectly rational when voting with their feet or wallet. Just that they are much, much more rational than at the ballot booth.

> Let alone when it’s free in the sense that the users never pays directly but through things as ads and privacy.

Well, can't argue about taste? Perhaps people prefer it that way?

> This means that lawmakers will sometimes have to do th8ngs the voters don’t understand they want. It’s on them to explain it to the voters. And it’s on the voters to vote them out if they still don’t agree.

I am basically agreeing with you: voting is a weak channel to transmit information. Almost no individual vote makes a difference. Neither in aggregate nor to the individual voting.

Voting with your feet or wallet does make an immediate difference to yourself, and has at least a clear marginal impact in aggregate. There are less weird threshold effects than in politics. A dollar more spend on iPhones is a dollar more spend on iPhones; but another vote for candidate A only makes a difference if it makes her have more votes than candidate B.

(And proportional representation only helps partially: in the end it's important which coalitions can form a majority in parliament, whether one party has one seat more or less doesn't make much of a difference usually.)

I'd like to give sortition a try to fill up parliament.

Re: Google Tag Manager, the new anti-adblock weapon (2020)

#410

Post by eru »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #384
eru wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use NoScript with Firefox on Android (together with uBlock Origin). After I unblocked the websites I regularly use (and not the ad delivery domains), it doesn't get in the way that much.

Unblocking the sites you use removes the advantage of not being tracked by Google through tag manager though.

That's probably true. Part of the reason why I still also use an ad-blocker.
Post reply on HN