Google’s GDPR Workaround • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#191

Post by philwelch » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

paul7986 wrote: post #152

Aunche wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no marketing expert, but I doubt that the best way Google can think of to sway public opinion is to call people privacy nuts. Google employs over 100,000 people and even more people work at similar companies like Facebook or buy targeted ads. Many of these people browse Hackernews and get offended if others accuse their livelihoods of being evil.

I can attest to that as when you point of things like Google gets caught stealing IP from a MIT student they invited for an interview (a popular thread here on HN) it gets downvoted voraciously. Either its employees, hired guns and or something...

Or maybe that particular story didn't really stand on its merits. I never saw the thread, but from my perspective (which is increasingly skeptical of Google), any sort of "stealing IP from interview candidates" theory doesn't make much sense.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#192

Post by idlerig » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat.

McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue.

She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her legs and crotch. She asked only for her medical bills to be paid. McDonald's refused, so she eventually took them to court. Even then, she only asked for medical bills (and now legal expenses).

The jury decided that McDonalds was not only liable for those costs, but had treated the woman so poorly that they should pay punitive damages. The massive amount you heard about in the news was based on the amount of money McDonalds makes selling coffee in one day.

But that's not the story that was spread by the shills...

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#193

Post by calcifer » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #96

ptx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debian's popcon is not enabled by default.

Debian's popcon is really irritating because Debian actually uses it as a source of evidence... systematically eliminating those of us who keep it off for privacy/security reasons.

Let me get this straight. You have an opt-in way of telling them what you use, which you don't use and then get upset because your use isn't considered? What should do they do, send a surveyor to your house?

Sound decision making requires metrics. If you opt-out of metrics, you don't get to participate in decisions.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#194

Post by tbodt » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

There's some documentation for this mechanism: https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/cookie-g...

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#195

Post by smt88 » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:37 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #79

docker_up wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The executives should face jail time. That would certainly light a fire under Google's ass to finally "do no evil".

Jail time? For telling companies what kinds of shoes you shop for on Amazon?

The rest of us go to jail for breaking the law. Why shouldn't execs?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#196

Post by rishav_sharan » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #145

Free startup idea: An ad service that did things simply without any targeted stalking involved.

Do you think any ad purchaser will actually buy such an ad? What would be the engagement rates of such ads be?

I am not sure how viable such a company will be in the real world.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#197

Post by bogomipz » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

The article states:

>"The primary targets of this campaign are Google and the IAB, which control the RTB system."

Can someone say who makes up the IAB exactly? Is this just an industry trade group?

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#198

Post by wutbrodo » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

axaxs wrote: post #179

navigatesol wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies do actually employ shills to go on forums and try to sway public opinion. This is the lazy and ignorant method of dismissing other people's arguments. Shill or not, what does it matter if what they state are facts?

Because literally anything is a fact, when worded the right way. In fact, that's most of what is wrong with the state of our 'News' today. Even little word changes can be used to sway public opinion (ex: 'victim' vs 'drunk woman', in a case an assault victim happened to have been drinking).

I confess that I've also never really understood why people are so outraged by the hypothetical it likely presence of actual shills: it's not like the population of non-shill commenters doesn't already produce every stupid and inane take possible. Shills can shift the composition of votes and comments away from a given board's biases (towards their preferred biases), but what does that change from the perspective of you, the reader? Why would you engage differently with a terrible take from a paid shill and a terrible take from someone dumb enough to sincerely believe it? This seems especially the case on anonymous or pseudonymous fora, where you've already given up hope of leaning on known character as a prior (and IMO that's an excuse for skipping critical thought much of the time anyway).

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#199

Post by fmajid » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

idlerig wrote: post #192

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat. McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue. She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her leg…

And the money went to Shriners' Hospital, not the burn victim (I saw the photos, they are beyond horrific). What's more, McDonalds had been advised their coffee temperature was dangerous, but decided to ignore this for marketing reasons, because people like the look of steaming coffee.

Re: Google’s GDPR Workaround

#200

Post by trpc » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

Brave is certainly the most shameless tech company I've ever seen in my entire life. Shame on HN to repeatedly allow such a scummy company exploits its ranking algorithm again and again. This kind of systematic exploitation used to happen before with DuckDuckGo, but it seems that Brave took shamelessness to a whole new level.