31–40 of 205 posts
I'm still hoping there will exist an extension to poison it with random categories and random measurement.
Its not that easy, but poisoning the data can be done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know what they're saying. I'm asking what the internet is going to look like when there's no advertising, and I'm pointing out what advertising currently allows for. > Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows What does that have to do with privacy or advertising? > invades your privacy I'm comfortable with a company seeing " likes cars" tbh
You set up a false equivalence. Why is the choice between these kinds of features, which lock Google in as the sole controller of online advertising, and no advertising?
So when people say this is a threat to the "free internet" I'm asking what that means - because right now the status quo has a lot of upsides, a few of which I listed. I want to hear what the alternatives are. What is it people are asking for?
What's the implementation of this that you think would be better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not talking about free as in no monetary cost, they're talking about free as in freedom. Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows. I have repeatedly come across sites that don't even test on Firefox because Chrome is just the default now. If you don't want to be cornered into a single option that invades your privacy, now is the time to pay atte…
I know what they're saying. I'm asking what the internet is going to look like when there's no advertising, and I'm pointing out what advertising currently allows for. > Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows What does that have to do with privacy or advertising? > invades your privacy I'm comfortable with a company seeing " likes cars" tbh
I agree that I prefer, privacy wise, to only deal with one company. But, this leaves them in a considerable advantage. It's ultimately, bad for consumers. And, from the beginning, bad for other businesses and market.
I know I appear to be in the minority here, but I trust google to categorize and share my "interests" more than I do random websites (plus, I use enough Google products that they have that info anyway), and I prefer targeted ads to totally irrelevant ones (like the garbage ads on twitter). I'll be leaving this on, since it doesn't have any tangible negative impact.
Based on the rubbish ads I get on YouTube on my phone I don’t think google are in any place to know what my interest even are. 5 years ago I used to get adverts for things like films which I would often watch the whole way through. Today I get adverts for phones and Chromebook. It’s like google are unable to sell adverts that actually target me and instead just throw their own rubbish I have no interest in, and even…
I would consider this a good thing.
My wife and I were talking the other night at a friends who have an Alexa in their kitchen. We were talking about taking a ski trip out West to Colorado or Utah.
We get the car to leave. She pops open her Facebook feed and wouldn't you know? She's getting ads for resorts in. . .wait for it. . . .Colorado and Utah along with the two places were thinking of going.
I was creeped TF out because this wasn't the first time its happened and the other two times, we weren't near a listening device like an Alexa and similar things have happened.
If they don't know your preferences, then you're doing something right.
Google referring to any of this as “privacy” is deceiving. It's pure doublespeak. Privacy is surveillance.
It is better for privacy than third party cookies which they are getting rid of.
“From what?”
“From what we’re gonna do to you if you don’t pay us for protection.”
Google referring to any of this as “privacy” is deceiving. It's pure doublespeak. Privacy is surveillance.
It is better for privacy than third party cookies which they are getting rid of.
This feature compared to that status quo is worse for privacy.
I think this might be the first time I’ve seen something that promises enhanced privacy instead doing directly the opposite, outside of the realm of malware and scam apps.
Imagine if there was a “save space on your hard drive” checkbox that used more storage space when it was checked. That’s what this is.
If you care at all about privacy and the future of a free Internet, this really should be that watershed moment that makes you take your head out of the sand. Seriously. Uninstall Chrome today and switch to something else. It’s only if enough people do it that they lose their grip and influence.
What does a "free" internet look like without ads? Serious question, because right now ads pay for a lot. Ads are why we have reddit and twitter - two sites that I think a lot of people like. Ads are why I could run a wordpress blog as a young student. If you assume "the current internet is good, but we want to improve privacy" what Google is doing makes sense. Advertisers can still say "ok that person likes cars I'l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know what they're saying. I'm asking what the internet is going to look like when there's no advertising, and I'm pointing out what advertising currently allows for. > Google has enough market share that they can just make their own standards and everyone else just follows What does that have to do with privacy or advertising? > invades your privacy I'm comfortable with a company seeing " likes cars" tbh
The problem here comes from Google being the ones who monopolise on the user data, leading them to be the only credible source of truth on the user interests. This is an outstanding move from them, business wise. I agree that I prefer, privacy wise, to only deal with one company. But, this leaves them in a considerable advantage. It's ultimately, bad for consumers. And, from the beginning, bad for other businesses an…
It's not like it goes to Google first and then it goes to advertisers. Chrome is what decides which data leaves the browser. Or have I misunderstood?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does a "free" internet look like without ads? Serious question, because right now ads pay for a lot. Ads are why we have reddit and twitter - two sites that I think a lot of people like. Ads are why I could run a wordpress blog as a young student. If you assume "the current internet is good, but we want to improve privacy" what Google is doing makes sense. Advertisers can still say "ok that person likes cars I'l…
The internet existed without ads and big centralized sites. People ran their own sites, link rings, email and other services. The big guys have taken away so much of the ability to effectively self-host, but fundamentally we do not need them and we do not need ads.
The only way to actually publish would be to have technical skills and money, which I don't think is good.