Mmm... Chrome won't accept 3rd party cookies to protect user's private. Meanwhile, Chrome is forcing all gmail users to upload their browse histories to Google. In the end, only Google has access to our browse history and can dominate the web ad market.
Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
241–250 of 354 posts
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#242It is so annoying to see that HN and general media have collectively decided that Google and everything it does is evil, but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Google is not abusing your user data like you are made to think. If you talk to a Google engineer, you would realise the countlesss number of measures they take to safeguard user's data - human access is next to impossible. Only machines…
> but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Do me a favor: Grab an Android phone with all the Google crap still on it, factory reset it, and actually read the obnoxious ways in which Google asks you to give it permission to track you. "We want to improve your search results!!! Click yes!" The small print: and thereby enable us to log EVERYWHERE you walk, drive, commute ALL DAY LONG. And that examp…
On their Messages app, they only have a comic aid to help explain how smart reply works. I didn't know whether to cry or laugh about it.
It is default opt-in btw.
Link for the related comic: https://web.archive.org/web/20210129192508/https://federated...
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#243It’s interesting how people don’t realize Google is basically saving these advertisers from bankruptcy, and yet they’re still complaining.
You realize Google could just have done what Apple is doing and completely get rid of all third party cookies with no replacement right? The privacy sandbox API is a lifeline to third party advertisers that otherwise would be completely screwed.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Do me a favor: Grab an Android phone with all the Google crap still on it, factory reset it, and actually read the obnoxious ways in which Google asks you to give it permission to track you. "We want to improve your search results!!! Click yes!" The small print: and thereby enable us to log EVERYWHERE you walk, drive, commute ALL DAY LONG. And that examp…
And do not forget the fact that you cannot delete any of these apps, and IIRC Gboard (Google's keyboard) requires Internet access, does it not? In any case, I disabled all Google apps and replaced it with alternatives. I should just root my phone and delete all of it, but sadly I need "Courier Services" and whatnot. Google is everywhere, you cannot even get rid of it.
Though there's little you can do to escape Google if you are using Android, what gives me some sort of peace is blocking internet access to apps like gboard. (AFAIK it's the only keyboard with support to inline autofill; this is literally the only reason keeping me from torching the app)
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#245We got away from flash cookies only to potentially have another option driven by one company?
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#246I hope no one is saying Privacy Sandbox is worse than third party cookies, or is trusting this article to form an opinion about it. Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? Does anyone think the result of beating up Project Sandbox will be more radical privacy pro…
> Web advertising was a $319 billion dollar industry in 2019. Does anyone wonder who may be lobbying their government to scrutinize Google and offer themselves for interviews for articles like this? You do know that Google is a web advertising company first? If they're proposing something, you can be damned sure that it was vetted first by people who know how to use it for ad tracking - because that's literally their…
> Chrome will never: ban 3rd party cookies
It will ban 3rd party cookies the moment Google decides it's time to kill off most of their competition. They have Chrome installed on most people's computers and smartphones so they hold tremendous power to dictate the direction of the web, while they keep tracking people through the browser, with a user login, basically cookie-less.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
And do not forget the fact that you cannot delete any of these apps, and IIRC Gboard (Google's keyboard) requires Internet access, does it not? In any case, I disabled all Google apps and replaced it with alternatives. I should just root my phone and delete all of it, but sadly I need "Courier Services" and whatnot. Google is everywhere, you cannot even get rid of it.
Though there's little you can do to escape Google if you are using Android, what gives me some sort of peace is blocking internet access to apps like gboard. (AFAIK it's the only keyboard with support to inline autofill; this is literally the only reason keeping me from torching the app) https://github.com/ukanth/afwall
Yeah, you can block Internet access, although still... I try to avoid such apps. I am using "OpenBoard". It has the same functionality from what I gathered, and it is open source IIRC. You can get it from F-Droid.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#248This post got me into looking up what Google's privacy sandbox actually is. One proposal I found quite interesting was TURTLEDOVE, which proposes to move ad bidding onto the user device [1]. The current proposal of course uses bidding logic delivered by the ad seller. However, if this were to gain wide adoption, the step to imposing user control over bidding gets a bit smaller. Imagine being able to tell advertisers…
That would be interesting. One option that might be more practical would be to enable users to buy out the auction with a limit order. Users could say “I’ll pay at most 50 cents to view this ad-free.” Most of the time users who want to avoid ads end up paying a fraction of a cent. Sometimes users pay a little more. And occasionally somebody actually wants to target a user so they offer an actually valuable bid.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is free however. If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses, and that will lead to its quality deteriorating, or even more extreme content filters to appease advertisers and remain afloat.
If advertisers can't violate one's privacy, that simply means they will pay less to the websites one uses.. Why? Businesses ad spend budgets aren't going to be reduced simply because ads no longer track people. The same amount of money will go to advertisers. So long as ad companies can deliver a better return than other forms of advertising that competes for those budgets the online ad companies will be fine.
Of course not.
If advertisement be less capable of generating new customers, then it is less valuable.
The amount of money one can sell an advert for to the advertiser is of course related to expected return value for the advertiser of that ad.
If it be lower, due to less efficient targeting, then he will not be willing to pay as much for the same advertisement.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#250Articles like this remind me of the fact Paul Graham noted a decade and a half ago that a substantial portion of "news" articles are written by PR firms.