Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated • Hacker News Board

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#121

Post by zaphar » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #109

zaphar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is overly simplistic. Frequently you get blocked because your IP block legitimately has a lot of people with poor computer hygiene who are a source of large amounts of spam which puts your IP on a reputation blocklist. There are legitimate and valid reasons for Google or Microsoft to be taking the actions that they do because email is an extremely hostile environment. Blaming them for that environment is silly.…

It goes beyond self hosting and IP blocks, because even if you use a large email provider other than Google or Microsoft, Google will quite happily block you too. So far as I can surmise: I got a ban from Google, that lasted a month because I sent a mail to a contact that contained the text of an advert I wished to complain about. During that time I could send mail to my own Google account but to nobody else's. If Go…

I'm not sure it's feasible to do better than that. They clearly call out the reason there. The domain has a poor reputation. The sheer amount of manual labor to field questions for every good actor who unfortunately is caught in the blast radius of other bad actors is an unworkable business model.

This isn't Googles fault. It's baked into how email works when combined with Eternal September. Blaming them is like blaming the Weather Channel for bad weather. They are just the messenger. Google has it's fair share of suspect activities but this isn't one them.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#122

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #42

marginalia_nu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go back and read the stuff from Brin and Page at the time, they do actually go to quite some lengths explaining how crucially important it is for search results to be relevant, and the original PageRank paper even outlines methods for reducing manipulation from commercial interests. It's a jarring contrast to what Google is today. "[...] we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that i…

From a viability perspective they might not have had a choice —but they could at least have put up a fight. Overture, which they acquired, did paid ranking, which is reminiscent of AOLs keyword(s). If Google had stuck to their ideals, someone would have come around and commercialized the idea (as Google did). The tragedy is Google didn’t try to stall all out commercialization but rather doubled down on it. Initially…

[deleted]

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#123

Post by marginalia_nu » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #42

marginalia_nu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go back and read the stuff from Brin and Page at the time, they do actually go to quite some lengths explaining how crucially important it is for search results to be relevant, and the original PageRank paper even outlines methods for reducing manipulation from commercial interests. It's a jarring contrast to what Google is today. "[...] we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that i…

From a viability perspective they might not have had a choice —but they could at least have put up a fight. Overture, which they acquired, did paid ranking, which is reminiscent of AOLs keyword(s). If Google had stuck to their ideals, someone would have come around and commercialized the idea (as Google did). The tragedy is Google didn’t try to stall all out commercialization but rather doubled down on it. Initially…

I think the main reason they've gone down the route they have is a lack of competition to keep them honest.

Microsoft tried with Bing, but it was too little and much too late. DDG has helped a bit even if it's mostly rebranded Bing-data, but we're still far away from having a healthy search ecosystem.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#124

Post by eliasmacpherson » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

zaphar wrote: post #121

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes beyond self hosting and IP blocks, because even if you use a large email provider other than Google or Microsoft, Google will quite happily block you too. So far as I can surmise: I got a ban from Google, that lasted a month because I sent a mail to a contact that contained the text of an advert I wished to complain about. During that time I could send mail to my own Google account but to nobody else's. If Go…

I'm not sure it's feasible to do better than that. They clearly call out the reason there. The domain has a poor reputation. The sheer amount of manual labor to field questions for every good actor who unfortunately is caught in the blast radius of other bad actors is an unworkable business model. This isn't Googles fault. It's baked into how email works when combined with Eternal September. Blaming them is like blam…

The domain is a major email provider, protonmail. They can read the contents and they already have the option to put it in a spam folder if it so heinous. They could very easily elaborate whether it is the domain, my address or the content of a previous message that has resulted in the block, but no.

They could simply do that instead of subtly encouraging me to use their email service, it is entirely their fault.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#125

Post by lamontcg » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #112

Tokelin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote a meme... "por que no los dos?" I have been using DuckDuckGo since I don't even remember how long now - pretty much immediately after I heard of it - what made the "switch" easy was the ability to search google (and a slew of other search engines and websites) from the ddg interface using the bang notation. So I have been mainly using ddg the past few years, but when I'm "sure" I would get more relevant resu…

The problem is that me switching away from Google products isn't going to change their behaviour at all, and I'm disincentivised from doing so because on an individual level, the benefits to using Google products outweighs the cost I bear from their actions. And even if I decide to bear thr cost of switching away as a largely symbolic act of protest, it doesn't change Google's behaviour at all. Problems at a societal…

But you really can switch to firefox and DDG today.

Firefox works perfectly well if you don't get wound up about silly details (mostly silly details that have been amplified by the internet which has told you to care about them, perhaps by Google astroturfing PR?) and you can DDG for 90-95% of your searches and fall back to google when it isn't doing well. Once you get over the initial few weeks of the learning curve there's very little cost to it.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#126

Post by hellojesus » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #112

Tokelin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote a meme... "por que no los dos?" I have been using DuckDuckGo since I don't even remember how long now - pretty much immediately after I heard of it - what made the "switch" easy was the ability to search google (and a slew of other search engines and websites) from the ddg interface using the bang notation. So I have been mainly using ddg the past few years, but when I'm "sure" I would get more relevant resu…

The problem is that me switching away from Google products isn't going to change their behaviour at all, and I'm disincentivised from doing so because on an individual level, the benefits to using Google products outweighs the cost I bear from their actions. And even if I decide to bear thr cost of switching away as a largely symbolic act of protest, it doesn't change Google's behaviour at all. Problems at a societal…

I would contest your position. While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact.

I did basically the same thing as the user you responded to did, but only about 6-8 months ago. And I plan to migrate off of Google services as soon as Graphene is ported to the Pixel 6.

If the utility that the convenience that Google offers you outweighs the inconvenience of not doing business with a company you disagree with, no problem. Your utility curve doesn't weigh in the actions of the company as heavily as mine.

Google won't need to change their behavior until enough people leave, and even then they may choose to go out of business as opposed to changing. But you would have played your part and spoken with your wallet which is how free markets are designed.

Note: My utility curve doesn't place any emphasis on me individually acting as a figure in Google politics: unions, regulation, etc. We all have preferences.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#127

Post by beaconstudios » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #125

beaconstudios wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that me switching away from Google products isn't going to change their behaviour at all, and I'm disincentivised from doing so because on an individual level, the benefits to using Google products outweighs the cost I bear from their actions. And even if I decide to bear thr cost of switching away as a largely symbolic act of protest, it doesn't change Google's behaviour at all. Problems at a societal…

But you really can switch to firefox and DDG today. Firefox works perfectly well if you don't get wound up about silly details (mostly silly details that have been amplified by the internet which has told you to care about them, perhaps by Google astroturfing PR?) and you can DDG for 90-95% of your searches and fall back to google when it isn't doing well. Once you get over the initial few weeks of the learning curve…

it's a bit more involved than that for me (I use Google search, chrome, gmail, calendar, android + play store, sheets, analytics, etc) but yeah I totally can switch. The problem is that that doesn't accomplish what I want, which is for Google to stop doing evil things.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#128

Post by beaconstudios » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

hellojesus wrote: post #126

beaconstudios wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that me switching away from Google products isn't going to change their behaviour at all, and I'm disincentivised from doing so because on an individual level, the benefits to using Google products outweighs the cost I bear from their actions. And even if I decide to bear thr cost of switching away as a largely symbolic act of protest, it doesn't change Google's behaviour at all. Problems at a societal…

I would contest your position. While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. I did basically the same thing as the user you responded to did, but only about 6-8 months ago. And I plan to migrate off of Google services as soon as Graphene is ported to the Pixel 6. If the utility that the convenience that Google offers you outweighs the inconvenience of not doing busin…

> While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact.

If we round off and assume Google has 2 billion customers, then your marginal impact is 0.00000005%. That doesn't do anything at all.

> Google won't need to change their behavior until enough people leave

This is based on the assumption that the only action one can and should take against Google is an individual disconnection from their services. This is pointless compared to meaningful changes through systemic means. I know HN has a lot of libertarian/rationalist economist types, but that ideological approach has been shown time and again to accomplish nothing, to the point where brands actively encourage "vote with your wallet" boycotts from conservatives because they are actually extemely profitable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg).

I'd also point out the libertarianism/rationalism is rooted in neoliberalism and the whole point of neoliberalism is to remove challenges to corporate power, so of course they would encourage actions that do nothing to really harm corporate power while feeling like you're doing something. It's the consumer activism equivalent of donating £5/month to charity to assuage your first-world guilt.

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#129

Post by rightbyte » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

vincnetas wrote: post #43

rightbyte wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data does not have to be easely portable though, right? I.e. they can send human readable data that can't be directly translated back to its original form.

no, it must be computer readable. you cant print and mail your data export. When the processing is based on consent or a contract, the individual can also ask for you to return their personal data to them or transmit it to another company. This is known as the right to data portability. You should provide the data in a commonly used and machine-readable format. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-custo…

Oh nice!

Re: Data trading for ad revenue must be regulated

#130

Post by hellojesus » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #128

hellojesus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would contest your position. While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. I did basically the same thing as the user you responded to did, but only about 6-8 months ago. And I plan to migrate off of Google services as soon as Graphene is ported to the Pixel 6. If the utility that the convenience that Google offers you outweighs the inconvenience of not doing busin…

> While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. If we round off and assume Google has 2 billion customers, then your marginal impact is 0.00000005%. That doesn't do anything at all. > Google won't need to change their behavior until enough people leave This is based on the assumption that the only action one can and should take against Google is an individual disconn…

0.00000005% is not 0%. There is marginal impact.

You are correct that I am both a libertarian and economist type, and that is born out of my love for rationality.

To do what you propose, you need to implement regulation. It is unclear to me how changing worker bargaining would impact the practices of Google towards consumers.

To implement regulation, you'll need to define some harm that is being incurred by a third party that is not voluntarily participating in a private transaction. What is the basis for the proposed regulation?

I don't think libertarianism exists to remove challenges to corporate power. Rather, it seems to me that it is rooted in, "live and let live." Unless there is a negative externality that is incurred by an unwilling participant, there should be no regulation. Morality is not the job of the state.