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

Brave files adtech complaint against Google

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 271 posts

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#181

Post by jonathansampson »

spiritcat wrote: post #168
jonathansampson wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're downplaying the implication of "moving one part of the architecture to the client". This inversion of the model means the user is sovereign over their data. It means ad fraud (responsible for billions lost) is dealt a massive blow. It means the publisher doesn't have to watch hand after hand take from their revenue before it reaches them. It means the user, finally, can get paid for the limited commodity calle…

Theoretically, could the (server-side) records of which ads the local machine learning decided to serve be reverse engineered to extract most of tracking info? Local AI keeps sending this guy ads for shoes and cottage cheese == this guys keeps searching for shoes and cottage cheese?

There will definitely be clever attempts to game the system, but bringing the experience into the browser, and onto the user's device, gives us the home advantage.

We have a passionate group of security-minded folks internally who have been exploring ways to game the system, and closing those holes preemptively.

I'd love to see us publish something in the future about specific types of attacks which work on the present-day model, but not on our model. Additionally, what types of new attacks could be possible, and how we've prepared.

Suffice it to say, having the home-field (the user's machine) advantage is going to play well in our favor.

Great topic!

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#182

Post by jonathansampson »

dkhenry wrote: post #178
jonathansampson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate as to what issue(s) you're seeing with Netflix? I know that we use WideVine for DMR content; it could be that this simply isn't an option for the time being. If you can share more information, I'll do my best to address it in a timely manner. Also, version information would be helpful. In brave-muon you can find this in about:brave. In brave-core, it's in about:version. Thank you!

Netflix reports widevine isn't available. I am running stock ubuntu and I installed Brave from the official brave-apt. Here is the github issue where you are tracking when it will be done https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/413 Also for good measure my version info Brave: 0.23.105 V8: 6.8.275.24 rev: 9a46f8f5cb22a9daf2af21989aed25911aa6f839 Muon: 8.0.9 OS Release: 4.15.0-29-generic Update Channel: Release O…

Thank you for the excellent response, and for linking to the issue on file. Glad to hear that it's already on our radar, and being tracked.

All the best!

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#183

Post by MarkMc »

The problem with GDPR is that it allows the website to decide how to ask the user for permission. That means the website can have a big bold button saying "I agree" next to a small gray link saying "I do not agree". Moreover if the user clicks "I do not agree" the website can nag the user often until he or she chooses the 'correct' option.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#184

Post by mertd »

boxspam wrote: post #172
nightsd01 wrote: post #170

From what I understand, Google isn’t actually giving away people’s data to “hundreds of companies” for advertising purposes. When an advertiser wants to target a specific group of people, Google doesn’t say “here’s everyone’s private data, good luck”. GOOGLE does the filtering and targeting internally. I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad. Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how i…

I do think that Google has data sharing with "hundreds of companies". These are not advertisers, these are ad companies. They recently updated to comply with GDPR. https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/9012903 https://developers.google.com/third-party-ads/adx-vendors Edit: And about it being "evil" or "bad", let's just say that it is "unnecessary" (from a user viewpoint). You can still make money from ads witho…

You'd prefer paid reviews over ads? Ads are honest. You know who paid for them and the intent is clear.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#185

Post by _oadw »

jonathansampson wrote: post #55
Sephr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're so admirable that they take a 5% cut of your donations to sites you visit and replace ads with their own. Call me crazy, but in no future can I imagine anyone willingly paying their browser vendor for anything. Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab. The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers. Edit: Fixed inaccuracy pointed out by Brave developer

You're 100% incorrect; the ad blocker is on by default. And Brave doesn't show any ads by default. I would like to invite you to actually download the application before making such egregious claims. Also, consider reading my response to "replacing ads" here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17972072

How is an adblock on by default going to save the internet? No one likes paywalls.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#186

Post by boxspam »

mertd wrote: post #184
boxspam wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that Google has data sharing with "hundreds of companies". These are not advertisers, these are ad companies. They recently updated to comply with GDPR. https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/9012903 https://developers.google.com/third-party-ads/adx-vendors Edit: And about it being "evil" or "bad", let's just say that it is "unnecessary" (from a user viewpoint). You can still make money from ads witho…

You'd prefer paid reviews over ads? Ads are honest. You know who paid for them and the intent is clear.

I meant "the best" for the advertisers, not necessarily for the users. It is possible to do this transparently and there are times when users may actively search such "ads" out (and being paid a small fee, instead of that fee going to ad click companies), but the trend is going to obfuscation. You can block ads, but you won't block content.

In a sense this complaint and PR is such a form of obfuscated advertising. The money and technological skills is in the hands of the advertisers, not the users, so this will be an unfair fight (advertisers will be better at hiding ads, than users are able to detect them).

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#187

Post by boxspam »

Jaepa wrote: post #171
nightsd01 wrote: post #170

From what I understand, Google isn’t actually giving away people’s data to “hundreds of companies” for advertising purposes. When an advertiser wants to target a specific group of people, Google doesn’t say “here’s everyone’s private data, good luck”. GOOGLE does the filtering and targeting internally. I’m sorry but that isn’t evil or bad. Unless we want to start paying for google searches and Facebook, this is how i…

or this is just a PR stunt on a company who's trying to trumpet their "we block trackers like Google" functionality.

The real world is hardly binary. Both the complaint may be valid, and part of a PR strategy.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#188

Post by andirk »

mertd wrote: post #184
boxspam wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that Google has data sharing with "hundreds of companies". These are not advertisers, these are ad companies. They recently updated to comply with GDPR. https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/9012903 https://developers.google.com/third-party-ads/adx-vendors Edit: And about it being "evil" or "bad", let's just say that it is "unnecessary" (from a user viewpoint). You can still make money from ads witho…

You'd prefer paid reviews over ads? Ads are honest. You know who paid for them and the intent is clear.

Ads honest? And their intent is clear? What is honest or clear about an ad that says "doctors dont want you to know this"?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#189

Post by andirk »

nostrademons wrote: post #174
Jaepa wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or this is just a PR stunt on a company who's trying to trumpet their "we block trackers like Google" functionality.

I'd bet it's a PR stunt. They're getting all kinds of publicity from this. ...that said, I installed Brave this weekend and am posting this comment from it, and I gotta say that it's really nice viewing a web without ads. I'd forgotten how pleasant browsing the web can be when you're not downloading the 100 or so ads & trackers on a typical news article and playing cat-and-mouse with their anti-AdBlock code. So from…

Saves more than half your phone's battery life too. And content creators get paid.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#190

Post by icelancer »

guiomie wrote: post #169
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I install ad blockers because I don't want to get auto redirected to a porn site which some unscrupulous ad vendors make possible. I tried going blocker free at work for 6 months. uBO got installed the day I was sent to a porn site by malicious JavaScript after clicking on an innocuous link. Google won't address the JavaScript problem with their ad network so I cut them off.

Sample bias here. But this hasn't happened to me since the early 2000's. I do not have any ad blocker, no ad bothers me, unless its an adult site, they've gone really crazy there.

I got forcibly redirected on a baseball statistics site multiple times while not using Adblock (my mobile phone which didn't have it). It happens all the time.
Post reply on HN