Presumably ads are so valuable because people click through them and go on to purchase. I realise I am in a minority, but I have never clicked on a digital ad and went through to buy something, and I never will. The minute I see ads on a webpage, I automatically associate that site with trash. (Please take note HN :)) It is as if humanity cannot be trusted with technology. This creates a certain "ceiling" for us in t…
> The minute I see ads on a webpage, I automatically associate that site with trash.
I don't think the EU, or consumers in general, are terribly interested in "compromising" with the ad-tech industry.
Not that I support the ad-tech industry, but those consumers probably are interested in having their favorite websites being kept alive. Which implies that they might indeed be interested in "compromising" with ad-tech industry.
Why should we give ad-tech their one millionth chance to "do the right thing"? They've proven time and time again they cannot be trusted.
Google didn't have to open source it. They open sourced it knowing it would encourage adoption.
Regardless this is a very calculated PR move by Brave. And the privacy zealots and anti-google cadre on HN and elsewhere are eating this up. They are effectively giving Brave free advertising and playing right into their hands.
To be honest this is the only useful comment in this entire thread and that's why you're getting mass downvoted by the online army of Brave shills (they are employing shills all around 4chan and reddit too). Brave has been repeatedly exploiting this website (or maybe YC just has business interest in it?) by attacking the company that made the product Brave contributed nothing to but theming and rebranding it and selling it as if it were built from scratch.
Presumably ads are so valuable because people click through them and go on to purchase. I realise I am in a minority, but I have never clicked on a digital ad and went through to buy something, and I never will. The minute I see ads on a webpage, I automatically associate that site with trash. (Please take note HN :)) It is as if humanity cannot be trusted with technology. This creates a certain "ceiling" for us in t…
> The minute I see ads on a webpage, I automatically associate that site with trash. You might want to reconsider
(hint: users just don’t care about privacy, except for the HN crowd). I'm not sure that's true: uBlock Origin has twice as many installations as Brave does. You might say "oh, but that's just blocking ads!" But if you don't block ads, privacy problems are going to spring out of the woodwork like nobody's business. That is, they might not care about privacy by name, but they certainly care about it in effect.
I’d say the vast majority of uBlock users care about user experience. The current ad experience sucks. Most local newspaper sites, for example, are unusable because of ads. But if it still preserved their privacy behind the scenes and didn’t significantly improve their experience, the install base on uBlock and other ad blockers would be near 0.
And I'd say the opposite. My grandfather just wanted ads gone; user experience isn't even on his radar. I've seen the thesis you've presented here before, and while it sounds plausible, I don't think it's as cut and dried as it seems.
People really do hate ads. We're inundated with them, constantly. Low grade psychological assault, at all times. I don't blame people for wanting a respite.
Could you expound? Exploits it's ranking algorithm? What does that mean.
> What does that mean. It doesn't mean anything. This 'trpc' account is the resident Brave hater; every HN story about Brave features trpc making stuff up or just impugning Brave as a scam. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830663 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19980046 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19832464 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19615220
thanks for highlighting my opinion on this scam, I am too lazy to write the same argument every time.
Well, when you purchase coffee at McDonald’s and you see that it’s super hot, you can return it or cool it down by blowing on it before drinking it. Not commenting on the legal case, but it seems nuts to blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on yourself, no matter how you slice it.
"Hot" is meaningless in this context. People take "hot" showers and it turns their skin red, it doesn't cause serious burns that require surgery. You can absolutely blame someone else if the coffee you spilled on yourself was served at dangerous temperatures. Also, you can't "see" that it is dangerously hot before it's too late. A lot of things have steam coming off of them and don't require hospitilization if you sp…
Well, when I buy coffee or tea, I usually can feel how hot it is by touching the cup. My local coffee shop serves it super hot, so I take the lid off and blow on it until it cools down. It simply would not occur to me to sue them if I injured myself with their hot coffee. I prefer it hot in any case, since you can cool down super hot coffee pretty easily. As I said, I’m not commenting on the legal case. The woman could have very well had a viable case. I’m commenting on the culture.
Are you saying I am not able to discuss this true story where it's relevant? In threads where people have discussions that hold Google in a negative light cause they choose to act that way and get caught? My real life story along with the MIT's student story in which there's clear evidence of Stealing IP further details more bad behavior by the big G! Is Hacker News not a place where freedom of speech is welcome? Spe…
The issue is that your comment broke the site guidelines by insinuating astroturfing without evidence. That's the main thing you're not allowed to do here, as I explained, and have explained ad nauseum before ( https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... ). Separately, there was an issue with your copy-pasting the same comment about this story repeatedly in a previous thread. That is what I called…
Ok I understand and agree with the spamming recently.
Ive never knew or heard about an astroturf guideline before. Thanks for pointing it out ... i was trying to start a debate as I wasnt sure if my comment was downvoted voraciously because of multiple posts or something else?
As for telling my story and or Jie Qi's similar one in posts that detail other bad behavior from Google I wonder how that isn't relevant? Per the upvotes HN readers must feel it holds relevance? Though you don't think pointing out that Google steals/gets caught stealing IP is relevant to other posts detailing more/other examples of their bad behavior?
The real time bidding on ad placements seems like a thing that a user could never give consent to as it's literally feeding your info to a massive ever churning list of companies that get to bid on it. Aka - you land on a site, it send your IP and whatever identifiers it has to 10,000+ companies who all then figure out if they want to bid on showing you an ad.
But where does your PII end up, only at Google, no?
IP addresses and identifiers are considered to be PII under the GDPR. These get sent to the advertisers.
Well, when you purchase coffee at McDonald’s and you see that it’s super hot, you can return it or cool it down by blowing on it before drinking it. Not commenting on the legal case, but it seems nuts to blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on yourself, no matter how you slice it.
As a thought experiment, let’s replace “really hot” with “poison”. Do you think it’s reasonable to blame the customer for inadvertently drinking poisonous coffee from a chain when all other chains sell poison-free coffee? What if it comes with instructions like “just wait 20 minutes and the poison will evaporate”—does this sufficiently clear the company in your view? How is unusually hot temperature significantly dif…
That’s not a valid analogy, since it’s pretty obvious when something is very hot or not, which is not the case with poison.