Brave files adtech complaint against Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#31

Post by icebraining » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

stvswn wrote: post #17

forapurpose wrote: post #2

They are arguing that the surveillance core of adtech is a GDPR violation, if I understand correctly. > The complaint argues that when a person visits a website, intimate personal data that describe them and what they are doing online is broadcast to tens or hundreds of companies without their knowledge in order to auction and place ads. It would be great if someone with real expertise in GDPR or adtech could provide…

So the publisher, through a platform, issues a bid request to an exchange with a lot of information in it. The parameters of that bid request contain all kinds of context like the site, the browser or device, etc. Critically, it also includes the cookie. The way GDPR has been interpreted by Google (btw Google is considered to be overly conservative in its approach by the adtech world): Cookies can only be passed by p…

Is that guidance publicly available? As a layman, Brave's interpretation makes perfect sense - those parameters are related "to an identified or identifiable natural person".

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#32

Post by dleslie » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

Sephr wrote: post #16

_red wrote: post #7

Its admirable what brave is trying to do. Practically speaking, its one of the best chance we have of creating a new internet where the incentives are more privacy focused. Hope they succeed.

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

Despite what the anti capitalists wish, the future is likely to be more cash grabs.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#33

Post by craftyguy » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

snaky wrote: post #13

_red wrote: post #7

Its admirable what brave is trying to do. Practically speaking, its one of the best chance we have of creating a new internet where the incentives are more privacy focused. Hope they succeed.

A new internet where $273 billion advertising industry does not exist?

A new internet where Brave gets a cut of the advertising, apparently. Yay?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#34

Post by Filligree » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

Sephr wrote: post #16

_red wrote: post #7

Its admirable what brave is trying to do. Practically speaking, its one of the best chance we have of creating a new internet where the incentives are more privacy focused. Hope they succeed.

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

> The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers.

Let's say I want to run a forum. Something equivalent to, hmm, https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/

How do I do that as a decentralized website?

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#35

Post by stvswn » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #31

stvswn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the publisher, through a platform, issues a bid request to an exchange with a lot of information in it. The parameters of that bid request contain all kinds of context like the site, the browser or device, etc. Critically, it also includes the cookie. The way GDPR has been interpreted by Google (btw Google is considered to be overly conservative in its approach by the adtech world): Cookies can only be passed by p…

Is that guidance publicly available? As a layman, Brave's interpretation makes perfect sense - those parameters are related "to an identified or identifiable natural person".

Article 4.1 itself, as it goes on, defines personal data in a way that it relates specifically to that which can identify someone, so it doesn't mean literally anything about the ad placement simply because a person is seeing the ad. Definition of personal data: "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person."

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#36

Post by fixermark » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:57 PM UTC

Filligree wrote: post #34

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

> The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers. Let's say I want to run a forum. Something equivalent to, hmm, https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/ How do I do that as a decentralized website?

Hypothetically, you could use something akin to Usenet's technical model (as that was a fully-decentralized message board collection).

But that will have implications for latency of post updates, security, and complexity of maintaining the system.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#37

Post by nil_pointer » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #27

The Basic Attention Token is an idea waiting to be reimplemented with Bitcoin and Lightning.

What is special about implementing anything Bitcoin+Lightning? BAT clones are already being developed on EOS and IOTA (both speedy networks with 0 cost transactions). Here's the IOTA advertising project: https://oysterprotocol.com/

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#38

Post by fixermark » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 6:59 PM UTC

snaky wrote: post #28

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

Or maybe the future is regular users being annoyed by plain dumb advertising to stop clicking on them, bringing CTR down too much, and the industry finally try to use some information they got in a meaningful way and make advertising not that annoying and quite useful.

Unfortunately, unlikely.

For one thing, the clickthroughs are certainly important, but advertising is also just impressions and brand recognition---even if somehow everyone magically stopped clicking on ads, companies like Coke and Pepsi would still pay top-dollar to remind you you're thirsty for sugar-water right now, and if you're reading websites or watching videos online instead of watching TV or reading a newspaper, that's where they'll do it.

But additionally, a very, very small number of Internet users click on ads. And those clicks float the entire industry. I'm not super-excited about any solution that assumes a tiny minority of people stop doing a thing; statistically, it's unlikely to pan out that way.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#39

Post by fixermark » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

legatus wrote: post #21

snaky wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A new internet where $273 billion advertising industry does not exist?

Can I ask what the amount of money that can be made has to do with this? First of all: they make a case against a particular type of advertising, not all of them. While I honestly believe an argument can be made against any type of advertisement, that's not what they're doing. Second: if an industry is based on immoral practices, what do we care if they make a lot of money? It's like saying "we should not go against…

Human weighting of incentive signals differs. "We should not go against slavery, it's an $X billions industry" isn't precisely how the US South thought about the problem, but ultimately they did go to war because they recognized that chnage in the status quo would bring utter economic ruin to a powerful sector of the populace with the political and social clout to goad the rest into war.

So yeah, "That industry makes an awful lot of cash" is useful to factor into one's thought process when one tries to reason through how one could tear it down. If nothing else, it's a first-approximation barometer of how much people will spend to oppose your efforts.

Re: Brave files adtech complaint against Google

#40

Post by tjoff » Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 7:04 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #26

Google (and Facebook) already have consent from the majority of users who don't care about this and would rather keep access to gmail, youtube, and social networks. Nice try, like GDPR itself, but the intent does not match the implementation. There are trillions in market cap standing in the way and this will end in nothing but a waste of legal fees.

GDPR consent doesn't work like that...