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

Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

fundingchoices.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#131

Post by Nasrudith »

ketzu wrote: post #14
ThePhysicist wrote: post #8

I'm still surprised no one has yet figured out a way to store sensitive data about personal interests and preferences on the client-side and let the client itself pull appropriate ads for the user to see. The quality of such a system should be comparable or better to server-side technologies with the right amount of tuning, and much less privacy-invading than existing approaches. Personally I'd love to support more w…

> I'm still surprised no one has yet figured out a way to store sensitive data about personal interests and preferences on the client-side and let the client itself pull appropriate ads for the user to see. When I was at Middleware2017 I saw a poster/demo about this, MoCA+: https://koreauniv.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/demo-moc... I guess the problem is the same as with privacy techniques in general. If you ask…

I think another issue is the first rule of network security - don't trust the client.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#132

Post by Nasrudith »

cirenehc wrote: post #40
dx87 wrote: post #27

Gotta love their choice of wording, "recover lost revenue from ad blocking users", like blocking ads is equivalent to stealing money from the site owner.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

The servers are entitled to send what data they want. The client is entitled to accept what and how they render it. That is how the protocols work. The servers can block visitors who don't login or load the ads but that has its own costs as they often find them not worth unblocking and just stop visiting.

Given the security issues involved with ads as a vector, general abusiveness, and poor programming leading to memory leaks and insane waste blocking by default is wise.

Even big ad networks have been caught hosting outright viruses from lack of vetting. There is no right to a business model and they have no right to access client systems.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#133

Post by BrendanEich »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #8

I'm still surprised no one has yet figured out a way to store sensitive data about personal interests and preferences on the client-side and let the client itself pull appropriate ads for the user to see. The quality of such a system should be comparable or better to server-side technologies with the right amount of tuning, and much less privacy-invading than existing approaches. Personally I'd love to support more w…

Brave, with the Basic Attention Token (BAT), is building exactly the client-side anonymous contribution + ad-matching system you describe. We will take BAT to other apps after proving the model in Brave.

BAT in Brave is opt-in -- each user consents before anything local happens with data or zero-knowledge/blind-token attestations -- and users can get _gratis_ BAT grants right now using the stable desktop browser (this is coming to mobile in about a month). The anonymous contribution system is the basis for the also-opt-in Brave Ads system, which uses local data only, local machine learning agent, and no cookies or user tracking by any server (even ours). Ads match against a catalog fixed daily or less frequently for a large set of users in a region who speak the same language. Attribution and confirmation use Chaumian blind tokens.

Users get 70% of revenue for opt-in, user-private (in tab), high quality ads at user-configurable frequency. We are working with publishers to provide user-opt-in ads for sites too, 70% revenue to the publisher, 15% to the user. User ad trial is under way right now, ping me if you want to be included. System should be available in Brave 1.0 in a couple of months.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#134

Post by BrendanEich »

tzs wrote: post #120
ThePhysicist wrote: post #8

I'm still surprised no one has yet figured out a way to store sensitive data about personal interests and preferences on the client-side and let the client itself pull appropriate ads for the user to see. The quality of such a system should be comparable or better to server-side technologies with the right amount of tuning, and much less privacy-invading than existing approaches. Personally I'd love to support more w…

In the late '90s there was a place that did something like that. That was a time of slow internet connections, with a majority still on dial-up. They had a product for Windows computers that provided a caching, prefetching web proxy. The deal with it was that if you let it show you adds occasionally (I think it was whenever you launched your browser to your homepage or once a day if you visits to your homepage were l…

Sounds like AllAdvantage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllAdvantage). An inspiration in part to Brave, but of course it did not blind itself to user data as we do.

The entire Google ad supply does not need to be downloaded, just a relatively brief catalog (which compresses well) of live edge URLs and metadata (keywords, essentially), updated as new deals for a given region with large enough user base come online, and old deals expire.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#135

Post by user812 »

BrendanEich wrote: post #133
ThePhysicist wrote: post #8

I'm still surprised no one has yet figured out a way to store sensitive data about personal interests and preferences on the client-side and let the client itself pull appropriate ads for the user to see. The quality of such a system should be comparable or better to server-side technologies with the right amount of tuning, and much less privacy-invading than existing approaches. Personally I'd love to support more w…

Brave, with the Basic Attention Token (BAT), is building exactly the client-side anonymous contribution + ad-matching system you describe. We will take BAT to other apps after proving the model in Brave. BAT in Brave is opt-in -- each user consents before anything local happens with data or zero-knowledge/blind-token attestations -- and users can get _gratis_ BAT grants right now using the stable desktop browser (thi…

I'm a big fan of that idea.

Imho the beauty of your BAT system (the way it is envisioned) is it's independency from the current model of monetizing the web, which is ads, gradually evolving towards direct transmission between publisher and consumer.

Ads in the way they work on the web are just a very inefficient system of transferring this value, and they don't serve the original function of marketing anymore. It turned into a big game of psychological warfare.

The system is so inefficient that it finances almost the complete operation of Alphabet/Google.

As a user I don't know how the system works in the background, and when I read the recent news about Brave attacking Google for GDPR violation it was the first time I read about RTB and the technical aspects in the media. People need to know, so they can decide if they want to feed such a system!

Funding Choices seems to be a part of Google's answer to the growing problem of ad-blockers, but it can also bee seen as Google's answer to competition like Brave/BAT.

I read somewhere that under the umbrella of Funding Choices Google is also experimenting with subscriptions like BAT, but without the token.

I don't know how successful Google is with this, but this might be a tough competition for Brave, they will fight tooth and nails, and they control the Android ecosystem.

BAT is attractive for power users as you ride on the wave of privacy-friendliness which Google can't, but I think the real challenge will be the average user that wants a standardized, seamless cross-platform solution that can be used as the main payment gateway for accessing content, which is increasingly via gated Apps.

With Google controlling so much of the market with Android and Chrome, I wonder how they will react to BAT if it ever becomes successful, as they could theoretically quickly scale any competitive project.

I think the biggest advantage of BAT would be if big players could acknowledge it as a de-facto standard for decentralized transfer of micro-payments and privacy friendly ad networks. For this to happen it would be necessary to be somewhat "Open-Source", i.e. not strictly tied to a singly company controlling much of the tokens. I am thinking in line of an open consortium with different players holding a significant part of the BAT tokens each.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#136

Post by stephengillie »

user812 wrote: post #135
BrendanEich wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave, with the Basic Attention Token (BAT), is building exactly the client-side anonymous contribution + ad-matching system you describe. We will take BAT to other apps after proving the model in Brave. BAT in Brave is opt-in -- each user consents before anything local happens with data or zero-knowledge/blind-token attestations -- and users can get _gratis_ BAT grants right now using the stable desktop browser (thi…

I'm a big fan of that idea. Imho the beauty of your BAT system (the way it is envisioned) is it's independency from the current model of monetizing the web, which is ads, gradually evolving towards direct transmission between publisher and consumer. Ads in the way they work on the web are just a very inefficient system of transferring this value, and they don't serve the original function of marketing anymore. It tur…

> The system is so inefficient that it finances almost the complete operation of Alphabet/Google.

Since Youtube is wildly unprofitable, Alphabet/Google has to be funneling in money generated from other sources. Thus, Youtube is funded by ads, just mostly not from the ads on Youtube.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#137

Post by stephengillie »

Terretta wrote: post #59
probably_wrong wrote: post #51

In their example, under "Gather consent seamlessly", their example shows "Yes" and "Other Options". Now, I haven't yet read the GDPR in detail, but I was under the impression that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A quick search returns: > The ICO also said that, while "GDPR does not specifically ban opt-out boxes," that method of communication is "essentially that same as pre-ticked boxes, which are banned"…

Having cleared all cookies recently, I'm re-encountering all these dialogs. They've gotten cagier. Anecdotally, a third of these cookie dialogs are violating those principles, either preselecting all third party advertisers, or claiming all 60+ third parties are necessary for the functionality of the site so Allow or Go Away. Or having only one OK/Agree button. It's not just little guys. Slate.com for example: Slate’…

> claiming all 60+ third parties are necessary for the functionality of the site

If you consider financial needs underpinning the site operation, it's technically true - without the 60+ 3rd parties, they could run out of funds to host the site, after which the site would not function at all.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#138

Post by brettz »

falcolas wrote: post #94
brettz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they do, CPM vs CPC.

CPM, for a personal blog, is going to provide negative revenue (the cost in time and upkeep of the advertising platform and integration). Do blog posters really think that alienating someone over their decision on what to render in their browsers is worth that 2/10th of a penny?

Yes because those pennies add up and pay for badwidth and content. It's not just someone, it's 30%+ of traffic.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#139

Post by criddell »

cirenehc wrote: post #130
criddell wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an entitlement problem, but it isn't on the part of readers. Advertisers, ad networks, and publishers have made so many terrible decisions that they drove readers like me to ad blockers. I'm not against ads, but I don't want to be tracked. I don't want a 500 word article to download megabytes of crappy javascript. Publishers are probably costing their audience more in battery life and bandwidth than they are…

"Publishers are probably costing their audience more in battery life and bandwidth than they are ever making from the ad they are showing". Have you done any calculation? The bandwidth/battery life cost for serving JS negligible. It's nothing compare to fetching/rendering images/videos, or even your mobile OS.

I've done some rough calculations. Just going by bandwidth, I pay $10 / GB (Google Fi). For that page with 500 words that I want to read that's been bloated out with 5 MB of ads and tracking script, I'm paying 5 cents.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#140

Post by gaius »

cirenehc wrote: post #41
gaius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their bandwidth bills would be a lot cheaper if they weren’t sending megabytes of JS for every kb of actual content

You have no idea what you are talking about. JS doesn't nearly cost as much as images, and most ad-related JS are minified. For many websites ad serving is the only profitable model. You won't make money off subscriptions unless you are one of the big players and don't have to worry about growing your user base.

For many websites ad serving is the only profitable model. You won't make money off subscriptions unless you are one of the big players

I was, until recently, a paying subscriber to the NYT, and there is no difference in the ads and tracking crap they pull. So I call shenanigans on that.

Post reply on HN