Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization • Hacker News Board

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#81

Post by snaky » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:28 PM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #45

Y_Y wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you read HN don't you? Can you tell articles from ads here? What about Paul Graham's submarines?

Being tricked by false headlines and articles published as news when secretly advertisement doesn't lead me to opt in to more ads.

It depends on how useful the advertising is. It's not the tracking or privacy the regular user is most concerned about, it's the everyday experience that tells him advertising is still stupid and annoying.

Despite all the billion dollars ML systems with gazillion of factors analyzed on petabytes of data, all we've got is 'hey, you googled for a 10uA accuracy bench multimeter yesterday! now for two weeks we will show you all the $15 multimeters ever existed!'.

Look at this (don't worry, it's short one-page) thread for example of how it might be instead - https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/benchtop-dmm-advise-n... - and what if the message from Tek engineer that closed a deal was actually advertising? He just posted a link to relevant appnote, that's it. What if automatical advertising system showed the same link to the same appnote as an advertising to the same user?

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#82

Post by shakna » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

kalcode wrote: post #75

shakna wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your issues... But I'm downloading your code, how it is displayed, and whether I run it your way is up to me - I already requested it, and your server fulfilled the request. If you wanted contractual obligations, they need to happen before you hand over the content.

That isn't a very good argument. Just cause you downloaded something doesn't give you the rights to it. If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now. Oh, this art? I am selling it. Well I saw it on the internet, my computer downloaded, their servers fulfilled it.…

> If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now.

Piracy is someone intentionally breaking a known license contract. Software trials require contracts first. Either upon download or installation. You agree to a license before you use Windows. Those agreements are binding. The web also has systems in place for similar contract negotiation. If you don't use that, it's kinda on you. Some users will choose to use your content in the way you intended, others won't, and you have no recourse.

> You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all.

Unfortunately for you, it's already held up under law. There's a reason the big players are trying for new solutions than attempting to ban users from blocking them.

> If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible.

We already have that. Quite seriously. HTTP has the structure for authorisation, and the process for handling it if you're not. Not using that structure, is a choice that leaves you vulnerable.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#83

Post by sleavey » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #59

probably_wrong wrote: post #51

In their example, under "Gather consent seamlessly", their example shows "Yes" and "Other Options". Now, I haven't yet read the GDPR in detail, but I was under the impression that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A quick search returns: > The ICO also said that, while "GDPR does not specifically ban opt-out boxes," that method of communication is "essentially that same as pre-ticked boxes, which are banned"…

Having cleared all cookies recently, I'm re-encountering all these dialogs. They've gotten cagier. Anecdotally, a third of these cookie dialogs are violating those principles, either preselecting all third party advertisers, or claiming all 60+ third parties are necessary for the functionality of the site so Allow or Go Away. Or having only one OK/Agree button. It's not just little guys. Slate.com for example: Slate’…

I noticed that about Slate too, yesterday, when another HN article linked to them. Now I just open sites that break GDPR laws in a private tab, accept all of their cookie things and skim the article and determine if it's worth properly reading (while blocking ads, canvas super cookies, etc.). When I'm done I close the window and all the data they place on my machine is wiped. This means the outcome for them is even worse than if they had behaved themselves and offered a "minimum required" box that I would have probably ticked.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#84

Post by mrighele » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

r3bl wrote: post #62

mrighele wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upgrading from AngularJS (1.x) to Angular (2+) is not trivial. They are two unrelated product that "by chance" share the same name.

I understand that moving to Angular is not trivial, however this is old even for AngularJS. 1.7.x is in a long term support, while 1.6.x stopped being supported since July. The version they're running has at least three vulnerabilities: https://snyk.io/test/npm/angular/1.6.0

Ah you're right about that. I was taking for granted that 1.6.x was the last before 2+.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#85

Post by bryanrasmussen » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #25

apinstein wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the big idea I always pitched at hackathons (like startup weekend). I think it’s a great idea. 100% opt-in ads. My tagline was “a sufficiently relevant ad is indistinguishable from content.” It’s meant to be aspirational. The idea is that if you are looking to buy something, awareness of choices or information about that choice should be so valuable that it’s considered to be a benefit by the user. It’s basic…

Unless I specifically seek them out, I have no interest in learning about new products or services ever. Thus, an ad would never be relevant enough to be content for me.

Do you ever look at HN without knowing what you're going to see?

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#86

Post by ReverseCold » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:38 PM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #78

tinco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you ended in the "people that put too much effort in anti-tracking" bin, and you get recommendations for those kinds of people :p

You jest, but having worked in the ad tech industry, I can say this is actually a completely viable means of tracking people. This is why you don't load uBlock Origin into your Tor Browser or use a custom User-Agent string while using your VPN. Everything you do that is different than what everyone else does (i.e. the default) is a means of identifying you. And if I could do it at that startup, certainly Google can d…

Changing your user agent is also probably a bad idea. There are other ways to detect browser, so you're pretty unique of you're using Firefox on MacOS with a Chrome for Windows user agent.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#87

Post by dmortin » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:38 PM UTC

sputr wrote: post #72

cirenehc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

If I'm correct you only gain money from advertising when the user clicks on an ad. If the user does not click (and you could argue that people who install adblockers will not) than no money was lost. The entire debate around copyright and online monetisation is trapped in "entitlement" of publishers in the METHOD of extracting value. Have you ever considered that maybe it's not that people don't want to support you f…

> If I'm correct you only gain money from advertising when the user clicks on an ad

There are also ads which pay per impression. CPM ads.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#88

Post by always_good » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

dmortin wrote: post #46

cirenehc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

Exactly. People don't get that getting rid of ads helps only the big players (because they can require subscriptions), while hurting the little guys. People may subscribe for big newspapers and such, but they won't subscribe to a lot of smaller blogs, for example, on various blogging platforms, which do provide value, but they are not big enough to warrant a subscription. Ads solve this case and I haven't heard any v…

You can see this in action on HN when people constantly use big publications like The Verge and NYT when complaining about ads or suggesting that everyone needs to find a new business model.

Meanwhile my forum now costs more money than it brings in. It's been giving teens a place to write collaborative fiction for over 10 years now.

Seems a bit sad that we'll eventually just be left with the sites big enough to live without ads. We're in the middle of a great centralization which you'd think most of HN would be wary of.

Instead I see the opposite, people basically welcoming it with a bloodlust in their eyes. What they don't realize is that their favorite examples of ad-dependent websites cast around HN like The Verge will be the last to die.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#89

Post by user812 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

shakna wrote: post #53

cirenehc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

I understand your issues... But I'm downloading your code, how it is displayed, and whether I run it your way is up to me - I already requested it, and your server fulfilled the request. If you wanted contractual obligations, they need to happen before you hand over the content.

And that is why the argument is always based on morality: "You should not do it, because it is bad" - which proves your point.

When someone publishes something on the web it is free by definition, and by law.

Publishers can chose to not make the content available, but it seems up to now relying on ads and moral shaming is a more profitable way.

Re: Funding Choices – Google’s new tool for GDPR compliance and content monetization

#90

Post by lmkg » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

bo1024 wrote: post #60

probably_wrong wrote: post #51

In their example, under "Gather consent seamlessly", their example shows "Yes" and "Other Options". Now, I haven't yet read the GDPR in detail, but I was under the impression that opting out should be as easy as opting in. A quick search returns: > The ICO also said that, while "GDPR does not specifically ban opt-out boxes," that method of communication is "essentially that same as pre-ticked boxes, which are banned"…

This hits another big point I've been wondering about GDPR. If site X has third-party JS from Google, Facebook, or so on, who does GDPR apply to? Is site X the one collecting the data, or is it the third party?

GDPR distinguishes between the "Controller" and "Processor" for data. A Controller has the most responsibility under GDPR. A Processor has separate responsbilities, and generally fewer of them.

In your example, Site X would be the Controller. Google or Facebook may be a Processor, or they may not be involved at all. If the JavaScript in question sends data to Facebook/Google then they are a Processor, whereas if it's purely a client-side library or something that helps Site X send data to itself then the situation is more ambiguous.

Vendors could arrange the relationship in such a way as to be joint controllers instead of processors if they wanted to. Most companies seem to want to avoid this set-up if possible.