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

241–250 of 271 posts

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#241

Post by marichards »

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…

If you run an ad campaign at a targeted audience, why can't the campaign have a specific page marker (campaign=only-christians (coded as AB1)) that reveals personal data?

We never had a choice of an alternative model. The monopolies involved demand privacy for their services.

You can serve ads without targeting or target content instead of audience: broadcasters have had to do this for a long time and it can be very profitable.

It is evil and bad to profile people and worse to force it on them by abuse of market position. Audience targeted ads are a form of discrimination.

Some of the data Google harvests has the potential to get people killed. For instance, when Google are gathering data about who uses membership areas of political sites, frequent sites for certain sexualities, using regulator pages to blow the whistle, etc. Google doesn't have a right to collect this data. It's evil.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#242

Post by ckastner »

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…

> 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.

It isn't evil, but it can be bad, and very much so.

Google doing the filtering and targeting follows after Google has profiled and labeled you, an action you generally would have no recourse against. This is similar to the No Fly List: you might have no idea how you got on there, but once you're on it, that sticks.

With Google's reach being what it is, the consequences after having been automatically labeled can be a frightening thought. You don't even have to have a Google account to feel the effects, shadow profiling can lead to the same result.

One of the positive things of the GDPR is that it recognized this problem in Article 22, and provisioned that a data subject has a right to contest decisions based on automatic profiling.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#243

Post by marichards »

luoji_ wrote: post #231
finnh wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the same logic, Google cannot charge much for targeting ads at those same people. So I am not sure what your point is.

The point is that targeted ads are a small price to pay for services like google that are so instrumental to the lives of most people. The reach that this model provides probably outweighs the benefits from being purely subscription based anyway.

Why is Google instrumental? I can use the internet without Google. Search engines like DuckDuckGo are free. Other email like ProtonMail is available for free. You can run free services and use different ad models, they don't have to be spyware based.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#244

Post by tjoff »

manigandham wrote: post #238
tjoff wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what you are saying is that my gmail doesn't work. Huh, that's weird, should I tell google?

No, that's not what I'm saying, but you already know that. Either way this isn't very productive unless you have some arguments.

My best interpretation is that you feel that people wrongly assume that if they don't accept tracking they will loose access to their services.

That unethical companies tries to push that view isn't particularly unexpected. But that doesn't detract from the massive success it has had in imprinting the notion that personal data must be treated with respect and comes with responsibilities. This is a game changer.

Also now, for the first time, if you are in the know you have something you can do.

I'd really like to know how you would have done this.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#245

Post by phobosdeimos »

britch wrote: post #60
jonathansampson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…

I'm curious, do you have any evidence that most people are installing ad blockers as a privacy measure? I don't have any hard evidence, but I imagine most people block ads because they don't want to have to scroll past a bunch of banners and videos to read the article they want to read. Certainly there are many people who are concerned about privacy, but I don' think that's what's driving the popularity of ad blocker…

Ad blocking just makes the internet better in every way.

Even an asshole like me will remove ublock origin if websites start to self-host ads. But they won't.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#246

Post by Nursie »

Klathmon wrote: post #180
Nursie wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't send me the content if you don't want me to render it as I see fit, I make no promises about how I will consume that data.

So can I ask, how would I as a website developer do that? If I don't want you blocking my ads, costing me money for servers and hosting, and removing my income stream, how do is signal to you or enforce that I will only send you content on the stipulation that you make a few promises on what you will display? Because in my experience, offering paid options to remove all ads and tracking if you want doesn't stop or ev…

Honestly at this point I don't feel like it's my problem. The web's not short of content but it is too rammed with advertising. It's gone too far and I'm not interested in seeing any of it, ever.

Your best bet is just to block folks like me. Make the deal explicit - turn on ads, get content. I'll probably move on somewhere else at that point.

I'm not going to be unblocking ads anytime soon.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#247

Post by Nursie »

purple-dragon wrote: post #167
Nursie wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't send me the content if you don't want me to render it as I see fit, I make no promises about how I will consume that data.

That seems like an overly rigid and adversarial perspective. I don't think online advertising is always done well or ethically, but in general, I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators.

> That seems like an overly rigid and adversarial perspective

It's the truth. You don't get to control how I render the page, on what device, whether I've decided to use links (or lynx) today, or any of that. It's my computing device, I'll render data as I please.

> I support the notion that having access to good content requires a way to compensate content creators.

Sure, but again if you send me the data, I'll render it as I see fit. Let's find another way that doesn't involve stalking, and trying to shove commercial messages in my face every few seconds.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#248

Post by baud147258 »

faag36 wrote: post #85
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.

The Internet for people who don't know about ad blockers must be a horrible place, it's no wonder everybody started using apps for everything.

Not that horrible. I don't use an adblock at work, even if what I'm browsing is limited to the register and HN with the linked pages and it's usable.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#249

Post by ehnto »

krisgenre wrote: post #228
ehnto wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern advertising is an industry rife with abuse and coercion. The ad industry is to blame. Content creators can be evil to, but enabled by the ad industry who is happy to be in like company. If I followed you around with a paper advertisement, wrote down where you frequent and who you talk to in my notebook, and left a copy of the advertisement everywhere you went, you would call the police. Online advertising does…

You can't really draw parallels with the virtual and real world. Starting at someone's Facebook profile pic is not the same as standing next to the person and doing the same.

But the tracking is in the real world. Adtech for tracking your presence in store and then online and connecting the dots has been in action for some time. You don't even need GPS enabled.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#250

Post by bla2 »

jonahx wrote: post #222
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…

> My personal suspicion is that people are just jealous of how much success Google and Facebook have had. Ah, yes, a classic: "All criticism of success and power stems from envy." Impervious to pushback (since that would only prove you'd pushed the hot button of painful truth) and always plausible-sounding, this is truly a brilliant weapon for snuffing out legitimate complaints and healthy conversation. > Unless we w…

> would jump

This used to exist: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta

Not many people were interested, so it got scaled back to an opt in model.

So it's not that many others willing to pay for this.

Post reply on HN