61–70 of 76 posts
Meanwhile the most popular browser is by... google, the largest advertising corporation on Earth. They've been there for a while now. Sadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they just ended up with a dependency on some tracking framework by accident, and they're too small to get in trouble for it. I'd say it's simply not in the spirit of the law. I.e. that cookie could be used to track you, but isn't. Sure, they could be secretly selling your info, but they could also be secretly storing your IP and anything else to fingerprint you. That would also be illegal, and no way you could know…
> If I walk across a red light in the middle of the night [0], where there's a car every 5 minutes, and do it carefully after looking left, right, left again, and you run up to cops parked nearby who saw that, and insist they do something, they'll laugh at you What country is that illegal in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? If not you aren't really working towards them paying a lot for ads, right?
>Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? Nobody "wants" ads, but they do want the free content they get today, which are funded by ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ronseal’s quick drying woodstain. Does exactly what it says on tin. Ronseal didn’t track me when they advertised it to me in the 90s, but the advert still existed and worked. Same with richer smoother Nescafé gold blend. the ambassador constantly spoils use with Ferraro Roche, and I can always get a great deal on car insurance if I compare the meerkat. These adverts worked, and had no tracking.
Exactly, I really question how much value personalized ads provide over contextual ones. It's very hard to track or provide an experiment for, but right now companies seems to be accepting the "Trust me bro" from the large advertising companies.
I think it's important we break this question apart by "value to whom."
1. Consumers barely notice ads for things they don't care about.
2. Sellers will see it as percentage inefficiency in their spending, wrapped up in other reporting noise.
3. Ad-networks on the other hand, may view a not-interested impression as a lost chance to make revenue by putting something "better" in its place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you want to click through and spend money on the ads? Nobody "wants" ads, but they do want the free content they get today, which are funded by ads.
Nobody asked for free content. It was pushed on us so they could track us. Before the Internet, you normally paid for what you consumed (at least, more than now. And before that even more).
> There’s no estimate of the environmental impact of all the extra processing
The “environmental impact” of this data processing is one of the “big two” problems with the proposal? Maybe this was just a backup filler argument but it is such a silly point that it immediately makes me question the entire article. This is a massive tell that someone is arguing in bad faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it the case that "countless websites have none"? Some websites, especially small ones operated outside of the EU, simply don't care about their obligations under European law. But in my experience it's extremely rare for European websites not to feature a cookie banner. It's not like it's just corporations: the official websites of the European Commission ( https://commission.europa.eu/ ), the presidency of France…
> Some websites, especially small ones operated outside of the EU, simply don't care about their obligations under European law. What about lobster.rs? Such as HN? Honest question, for all I know they're breaking EU law and nobody cares. Or maybe they don't. Anyway, pouet.net doesn't have one. It links to a ton of group sites, many European, try to count the ones that don't have a cookie banner. For fun, I did a quic…
Meanwhile the most popular browser is by... google, the largest advertising corporation on Earth. They've been there for a while now. Sadly.
And then to make it worse, plenty of devs see no issue shipping it with their applications instead of proper OS frameworks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Agreed, this can't be worse than what it's replacing. Why can't it?
Because as GP alluded to, the thing it's replacing (cookies) already does exactly the same thing but isn't anonymized.
It’s adding an additional feature that provides information to advertisers that they currently use cookies as one part of, with different considerations.