91–100 of 428 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woah, so if a user is logged into chrome, Google has permission / is able to track all web activity for that user?
There’s a setting (Web and App Activity) to let Google collect activity on Google properties to use for personalization features. I’m pretty sure it does not track any activity on non-Google properties.
> Re: forced Chrome logins. Don't need cookies if you own the browser! ( https://twitter.com/fasterthanlime/status/145209451374118912... ) The swindle with FLOC was pretty obviously tied in this, but people still went in circles discussing whether it's private or not, and downvoting those who said FLOC is a trap. Let's consult the plan, nothing is even secret about this: - Google disables third-party cookies, crippli…
However, we are proven time after time that power corrupts. Unless there's a regulatory body to watch their every move it seems they'll abuse their dominance to maximize profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, jail sentences. Fines are good but don't work that well, even if they're large, because of agency conflict of interest. It's mostly the shareholders who are paying the price. The execs already saw their call option paid off with their 10 years of comp while they were running this scam (among others).
The shareholders reaped a lot of benefit along the way. It doesn’t seem outrageous to have the company (the shareholders in aggregate) pay fines related to the behavior.
Historically, it seems like the answers to those are solid no’s, and after lawyers have argued it for a decade, the fines look more like $1 billion. Which skews things a lot.
Hello advertisers. You are being manipulated and abused just like the consumers you are targeting. There is very little evidence to show that invasive digital advertising is actually effective. When was the last time you clicked on one of these ads and actually made a purchase? Bad for consumers and bad for advertisers. Why continue with this opaque, profit sucking charade that mainly enriches those selling the ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read a lot of companies buy advertising specifically for their own name, because if they don't, a competitor will, and will appear first when someone googles the company name.
There was a freakanomics podcast 2-part episode on advertising which discussed this, and many other things. At least in one case (eBay?) they discovered this kind of brand advertising had essentially zero effect. Turns out if people search for eBay, they are going to click the result for eBay, whether it is first or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 42.7% of internet users worldwide (16-64 years old) use ad blocking tools at least once a month. That statistic is incredibly misleading. The amount of page views without adblocks is much higher then the insinuated 58%, because they're counting everyone as "using AdBlock" if they've used any device with an AdBlocker installed at any time within a month And a lot use AdBlock Plus, which also sells your usage statist…
Did you, by chance, mistake ad blocking for AdBlock - the browser extension? 42.7% of users globally use ad blockers while Adblock has 65 million users. Surely, 42.7% of users is > than 65 million. Also, I don’t understand why you compared page views to users. It’s probably very uncommon for a user to install an ad blocker but also choose to enable or disable it on specific page views.
we were talking about how many people see internet adverts. you then linked a statistic implying that 42.7% of people wouldn't be reached because they're using adblockers.
this is false, because most of these people will still be reached, as they're only occasionally using adblockers
Does anyone else wonder if Page and Brin feel any pangs of guilt over how their company went from "Don't be evil" to such corrupt practises? It really is a classic case study in the journey from apparent idealism to a complete moral vacuum.
All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing certain ads to certain people. Some other evade taxes using laws in ways laws were never intended to be used.
To enumerate and prevent every abuse possible is not optimal spending of time.
What if there were no hard rules, but instead the whole playing filed was in favour of little men. What would be the the main idea behind such system? Maybe some kind of radical transparency?
This idea, principle should apply to every company and reward those who play not only by the rules, but to the common end: sustainable, transparent, non-abusive, respecting sosiety.
If only existed some simple rule that reward this behaviour.
Let's not blame a whole company for what some small part of it did. Google does a lot of good in this world. They were the first "ethical" tech company, the first tech company with "hacker values" at heart. "do no evil" is still a core value there.
I disagree with everything you say, but: “ They were the first "ethical" tech company,” What does that even mean? Unless you equate “ethical” with manipulating their dominant social position to shove a worldview you happen to agree with. Which is a very… narrow understanding of ethics. As well as convenient, and, historically, trite (socially advantaged person agrees w/ the worldview a social institution imposes that…
Read HN from 10 years ago. Posters were gushing about how cool and amazing Google is, how much good they are doing to the tech industry, how more companies should be like than and do ethical things like they do, for example support open standards and source instead of proprietary systems.
They were saying that Google is a company run by techies who value hacking ethics ideals and not by business men who only care about money.