7 ms·

>So only tens of millions of people whose browsing history is being siphoned off without their consent? If you have an issue with this, disable javascript and

>So only tens of millions of people whose browsing history is being siphoned off without their consent? If you have an issue with this, disable javascript and third party cookies on your browser - take some personal responsibility. Also, go setup a protest on Google’s front lawn, because Google Analytics (which also tracks you) is in use on nearly 75% of the Quantcast Top 100k sites [1]. That represents billions of people whose “browser history is being siphoned off with their consent” as you put it and over 6x the number of sites that the Facebook pixel is on. Since you seem to have a significant issue with Facebook, I’d suggest that you block all connections to them, which should solve your problem. Most firewalls, including the free Windows Firewall, enable you to easily block all connections to any root domain. You can configure your firewall to block *.Facebook.com for example, and then you will no longer have to worry about Zuck monitoring you. [1] https://trends.builtwith.com/analytics/Google-Analytics https://trends.builtwith.com/analytics/Google-Analytics

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript and cookies on your browser - take some personal responsibility This is a problematic attitude. It's the car dealer telling the lemon [1] buyer to "take personal responsibility" for being sold junk. The point of government is we don't stand alone. Facebook is a menace, and I block them. But I shouldn't have to. And neither should my mother. > it’s hypocritical to only have a problem with Facebook when Google is doing it on a scale that Facebook can only imagine Whatabout whatabout [2]? "You can't arrest me because there is another arsonist in town" isn't a valid excuse. (In any case, third parties calling out some, but not all, bad actors in a category isn't hypocrisy. It's prioritization. Hypocrisy would be Google calling out Facebook's advertising model, or an Enron executive criticising Facebook employees' complicity.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_%28automobile%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_%28automobile%29 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- downandout 9y ago
  I was apparently in the process of editing out the “hypocritical” statement when you replied - I actually didn’t even mean for that to get posted but accidentally hit post before the final post was ready. Anyway I was mainly advising that you block Facebook since you so vehemently dislike them.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > I was mainly advising that you block Facebook since you so vehemently dislike them Yours is a technical solution to a human problem. If we care about democracy and the future of the Internet, we will dismantle Facebook. (I expect we will, though in typical democratic fashion, after years of quibbling.)
    - StanislavPetrov 9y ago
      > a human problem. That's the very crux of the whole "debate" over everything from Facebook to "Russiagate". The bottom line is, you can't fix stupid. We have a very serious problem with stupidity and ignorance in this country. Far too many people lack basic critical thinking skills. You can't childproof society because far too many people are easy to fool. This "problem" won't be fixed until we have a critical mass of people who can think for themselves, be skeptical and aware.
      - musage 9y ago
        People being ignorant or not very intelligent isn't the problem as much as is other people exploiting that willfully. Helplessness does not cause lack of empathy or even sadism, and "Look what you made the bad man do" is something said to avoid responsibility, not to properly place it. When I see someone who is unconscious in the street, I don't steal from them, I don't kick them, or anything of that kind. At worst I might walk past them, at best I'll try to help. But there are people who would do these things and more. And if they see someone who isn't unconscious yet, but has their back turned, they might knock them unconscious and then do something to them. Those people matter, as does the fact that they don't just pick up some money on the street that would otherwise get swept down the storm drain. Even if all adults or even teenagers who aren't mentally handicapped became super hardcore critical thinkers, there still would be diseases, conditions or accidents that weaken people temporarily or for good, and there will always be children coming into the world who depend on being able to more or less absorb what the adults around them do, who depend on that not being toxic, and so on. So, totally orthogonally to it being desirable for people to have autonomy, to be able to make informed decisions and defend themselves: when abuse happens, disarm and quarantine the abuser, then maybe practice enforcing boundaries with the victim... but to just stand on the sidelines and sneer at them because the abuser can't touch you (yet) is quite rich. "Stupidity" becomes a problem because of sociopaths, and those obedient to sociopaths. Start there.
- StanislavPetrov 9y ago
  >This is a problematic attitude. It's the car dealer telling the lemon [1] buyer to "take personal responsibility" for being sold junk. That's a flawed analogy. Paying for a car and being defrauded is in no way related to being tracked by websites. A better analogy is walking around naked and then being upset when people look at your bare ass. If you don't want people to see you naked, wear clothes. If you don't want people to track you on the internet, don't expose yourself. >The point of government is we don't stand alone. Facebook is a menace, and I block them. But I shouldn't have to. And neither should my mother. That's not the point of the government. Many of us don't want the government to be an all-encompassing nanny state deciding what's okay for private parties to do with public information. Its incredibly disturbing how many people not only tolerate, but openly welcome government regulation of private, interpersonal behavior. You say they should block Facebook. They have already blocked Backpage. What else do you want to give them the power to block? Where do you draw the line? Personally I think Facebook is extremely scummy. I'm not on Facebook, and I block them in every way - but I certainly don't want the government blocking them - or anyone else - on my behalf.
  - twoWhlsGud 9y ago
    There's an old saying "when you owe the bank a million dollars it's your problem, when you owe the bank billion dollars it's their problem" (like I said it's an old saying ;-) I think there's an analogy here-if enough people are being successfully abused by private companies it's no longer a matter that you can just pawn off on some sort of concept of personal responsibility. If your beloved private companies are threatening to exploit people hard enough to threaten the very existence of democracy, then it certainly starts to look like something where exploring a government role is worthwhile.
  - foxhedgehog 9y ago
    > Paying for a car and being defrauded is in no way related to being tracked by websites. This is incorrect: they're both examples of informational asymmetry being used to disadvantage a consumer. In both cases, that consumer needs to possess technical knowledge in order to understand the ways that the counterparty entity is exploiting them. In the case of the car dealership, at least the consumer is aware of the stakes when they step onto the lot, i.e. they are planning to buy a car. The problem with Facebook is exactly that people aren't aware of how they are being monetized, and that there is an explicit financial incentive to obscure that from them. They are stepping onto a car lot, or more accurately a surveillance operation, that has been made to look like an amusement park. "Personal responsibility" is a convenient fig leaf for people who want to pretend that the amusement park wasn't the sales pitch. If you don't like the original analogy to a used car salesman, consider the need for similar regulation around financial services, clean water, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. etc.
anf 9y ago
Does GA share data outside of GA? Last I looked into it, I came away thinking that data is kept to privacy standards equivalent to e.g. Google Sheets.
- downandout 9y ago
  It appears that they do. From [1]: When you visit a website that uses our advertising products (like AdSense), social products (like the +1 button), or analytics tools (Google Analytics), your web browser automatically sends certain information to Google....we may use the information we receive to, for example: Make ads more effective.... [1] https://policies.google.com/privacy/partners https://policies.google.com/privacy/partners
  - cosmie 9y ago
    In this case, the "may" part in there is relevant, and not just an attempt to add in ambiguity to defuse things. The Google Analytics property owner has to explicitly opt-in to allow Google to do this. And part of that opt in includes the site owner agreeing to an addition ToS certifying that they both disclose they do so and have appropriate consent to do so. You can learn more about that at [1]. In practice, most site owners toggle this feature on without realizing the liability they've agreed to. Because it enables additional reports in GA (by merging and exposing the demographic targeting data their ad system has), as well as pushes GA data into Adwords and DoubleClick if you want to link your accounts. But, Google does keep the GA data siloed off by default. [1] https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2444872?hl=en https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2444872?hl=en
    - downandout 9y ago
      But the end result is that most GA widgets are reporting data that is being used by Google to improve ad targeting, since most site owners turn the feature on.
      - anf 9y ago
        [citation required] but even if true, getting site owners to opt-in to exchanging their user's privacy for psychographic and demographic correlations seems materially different than Facebook's "no opt out" on a relatively unrelated feature like a Like button on a 3rd party site. They used to and could again make the button work without using it to gather browsing data.
codetrotter 9y ago
> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript and third party cookies on your browser - take some personal responsibility. I tried and doing so breaks pretty much every website. Because it’s not only the tracking stuff that makes use of JavaScript and third-party cookies.
- hinkley 9y ago
  Ignore him. This is one of the classic responses to any challenge of the status quo. If you don’t like the way things are then you should upend your entire life, go live in a cave, subsist on bugs and stop challenging my world view. Tl;dr He was trying to sound helpful while telling you to go fuck yourself.
  - downandout 9y ago
    I was doing no such thing. I was simply telling him the only realistic way to cut down on third-party tracking.
- downandout 9y ago
  It may, but unfortunately you have limited choices. You can also browse in an incognito window, which will at least disable tracking from session to session. However, even then your IP address is being associated with certain behaviors. The reality is that you have a choice: use the Internet and have some tracking happen, or don't use it at all. Even the GDPR doesn't stop tracking - it just requires better disclosure of it and mandates certain handling procedures for the data that is collected on the backend. If you just have a dislike for certain websites tracking you, you can use the Windows (or other) firewall to block specific domains as I stated above.
  - james-mcelwain 9y ago
    Firefox has support for multiple profiles! I have a profile that I only use for Facebook, Gmail, and Twitter, and one that I use for everything else. Probably not perfect, but provides more isolation.
  - 9y ago
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Google is awful. But so is Facebook. Shifting blame to Google in a discussion about Facebook is a distraction from the problem.
- downandout 9y ago
  When someone pipes up saying how terrible it is that one company is tracking people on 12% of the top websites in the world, I think it's directly relevant to point out that another one is tracking people on 75% of that same group of sites. The tracking is either an issue or it isn't, regardless of who is doing it. If it isn't, then this is a pointless discussion, and if it is, then clearly this particular discussion should primarily be about Google. Regardless, it is a moot point because third party tracking is here to stay, even under GDPR - you'll just have another message box to dismiss when browsing. My favorite so far is this one - http://prntscr.com/j67usw http://prntscr.com/j67usw . I offered a few ways to slow down that tracking above, but the only true way to not be tracked is to not use the Internet, because none of this even broaches the subject of what data ISPs collect about your behavior.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    I can appreciate that argument, and I agree with you, but I don't think that's the argument you made in your original comment. It's a good one, though.
quadrangle 9y ago
> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript I have an issue with Facebook doing this to OTHER PEOPLE and thus dramatically influencing the world I live in. I can and do block their Javascript, but that doesn't block it for others. The idea that our decisions are just independent and everyone can decide for themselves is (A) wrong in terms of how we are affected by decisions made by others (B) anti-social and (C) denies the reality of organized power. If Facebook had to just be a bunch of unorganized, separate, independent people instead of a company with organized structure, they'd not have the power they have. They have power because of their organized structure. The idea that the other side of thing (the regular citizens) should only act as isolated individuals while the companies act as enormous organized power is ridiculous.
- wruza 9y ago
  If it has so much influence, then it must be controlled by more powerful superiors than just that Zuck guy, isn’t it. He must be thankful for they to leave him a possibility to sell t-shirts.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    That sounds like a tautology along the lines of Creationist thinking (this is so well-designed, it must have a designer…) If there are more powerful superiors, then wouldn't the same argument apply? They must be powerful because they have superiors, etc. etc. ad absurdem… My point wasn't that any ONE person (Zuck or anyone) is all powerful or influential. The point is that SOLIDARITY i.e. ORGANIZATION itself confers power on the organization. Organized power might be distributed where no one person can dictate the organization's direction. Or it might have an all-powerful-dictator. Either way, organizing confers power to the organized entity. Corporations are powerful, even though they are constrained in various ways and the power is wielded by a mix of actors within the corporation. Consumers / citizens who each act unilaterally have less power even though their aggregate decisions can have powerful effects in the market (because they are disorganized, they can only choose from what the supply side offers, we don't get true demand-driven products). Organized power doesn't necessarily mean top-down either. See the Starfish and the Spider (book about decentralization). Decentralized entities are more persistent (no single head to cut off to kill them), but decentralized ≠ unorganized.
jacobush 9y ago
2003 called and wants it HTML back. Seriously, the web today with JavaScript disabled? Grandma configuring her what now?
oarsinsync 9y ago
75% of 100,000 is 75,000 12% of 1,000,000 is 120,000. Not advocating for one side or the other, just correcting the math. One person commented on 12% of top 1m sites. Another is commenting on 75% of top 100k sites. EDIT: Checked the source material links and GA is on 65% of the top 1m. That is definitely more, and a more useful comparison I think.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript and cookies on your browser - take some personal responsibility This is a problematic attitude. It's the car dealer telling the lemon [1] buyer to "take personal responsibility" for being sold junk. The point of government is we don't stand alone. Facebook is a menace, and I block them. But I shouldn't have to. And neither should my mother. > it’s hypocritical to only have a problem with Facebook when Google is doing it on a scale that Facebook can only imagine Whatabout whatabout [2]? "You can't arrest me because there is another arsonist in town" isn't a valid excuse. (In any case, third parties calling out some, but not all, bad actors in a category isn't hypocrisy. It's prioritization. Hypocrisy would be Google calling out Facebook's advertising model, or an Enron executive criticising Facebook employees' complicity.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_%28automobile%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_%28automobile%29 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

downandout 9y ago
I was apparently in the process of editing out the “hypocritical” statement when you replied - I actually didn’t even mean for that to get posted but accidentally hit post before the final post was ready. Anyway I was mainly advising that you block Facebook since you so vehemently dislike them.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > I was mainly advising that you block Facebook since you so vehemently dislike them Yours is a technical solution to a human problem. If we care about democracy and the future of the Internet, we will dismantle Facebook. (I expect we will, though in typical democratic fashion, after years of quibbling.)
  - StanislavPetrov 9y ago
    > a human problem. That's the very crux of the whole "debate" over everything from Facebook to "Russiagate". The bottom line is, you can't fix stupid. We have a very serious problem with stupidity and ignorance in this country. Far too many people lack basic critical thinking skills. You can't childproof society because far too many people are easy to fool. This "problem" won't be fixed until we have a critical mass of people who can think for themselves, be skeptical and aware.
    - musage 9y ago
      People being ignorant or not very intelligent isn't the problem as much as is other people exploiting that willfully. Helplessness does not cause lack of empathy or even sadism, and "Look what you made the bad man do" is something said to avoid responsibility, not to properly place it. When I see someone who is unconscious in the street, I don't steal from them, I don't kick them, or anything of that kind. At worst I might walk past them, at best I'll try to help. But there are people who would do these things and more. And if they see someone who isn't unconscious yet, but has their back turned, they might knock them unconscious and then do something to them. Those people matter, as does the fact that they don't just pick up some money on the street that would otherwise get swept down the storm drain. Even if all adults or even teenagers who aren't mentally handicapped became super hardcore critical thinkers, there still would be diseases, conditions or accidents that weaken people temporarily or for good, and there will always be children coming into the world who depend on being able to more or less absorb what the adults around them do, who depend on that not being toxic, and so on. So, totally orthogonally to it being desirable for people to have autonomy, to be able to make informed decisions and defend themselves: when abuse happens, disarm and quarantine the abuser, then maybe practice enforcing boundaries with the victim... but to just stand on the sidelines and sneer at them because the abuser can't touch you (yet) is quite rich. "Stupidity" becomes a problem because of sociopaths, and those obedient to sociopaths. Start there.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
>This is a problematic attitude. It's the car dealer telling the lemon [1] buyer to "take personal responsibility" for being sold junk. That's a flawed analogy. Paying for a car and being defrauded is in no way related to being tracked by websites. A better analogy is walking around naked and then being upset when people look at your bare ass. If you don't want people to see you naked, wear clothes. If you don't want people to track you on the internet, don't expose yourself. >The point of government is we don't stand alone. Facebook is a menace, and I block them. But I shouldn't have to. And neither should my mother. That's not the point of the government. Many of us don't want the government to be an all-encompassing nanny state deciding what's okay for private parties to do with public information. Its incredibly disturbing how many people not only tolerate, but openly welcome government regulation of private, interpersonal behavior. You say they should block Facebook. They have already blocked Backpage. What else do you want to give them the power to block? Where do you draw the line? Personally I think Facebook is extremely scummy. I'm not on Facebook, and I block them in every way - but I certainly don't want the government blocking them - or anyone else - on my behalf.
- twoWhlsGud 9y ago
  There's an old saying "when you owe the bank a million dollars it's your problem, when you owe the bank billion dollars it's their problem" (like I said it's an old saying ;-) I think there's an analogy here-if enough people are being successfully abused by private companies it's no longer a matter that you can just pawn off on some sort of concept of personal responsibility. If your beloved private companies are threatening to exploit people hard enough to threaten the very existence of democracy, then it certainly starts to look like something where exploring a government role is worthwhile.
- foxhedgehog 9y ago
  > Paying for a car and being defrauded is in no way related to being tracked by websites. This is incorrect: they're both examples of informational asymmetry being used to disadvantage a consumer. In both cases, that consumer needs to possess technical knowledge in order to understand the ways that the counterparty entity is exploiting them. In the case of the car dealership, at least the consumer is aware of the stakes when they step onto the lot, i.e. they are planning to buy a car. The problem with Facebook is exactly that people aren't aware of how they are being monetized, and that there is an explicit financial incentive to obscure that from them. They are stepping onto a car lot, or more accurately a surveillance operation, that has been made to look like an amusement park. "Personal responsibility" is a convenient fig leaf for people who want to pretend that the amusement park wasn't the sales pitch. If you don't like the original analogy to a used car salesman, consider the need for similar regulation around financial services, clean water, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. etc.

anf 9y ago

Does GA share data outside of GA? Last I looked into it, I came away thinking that data is kept to privacy standards equivalent to e.g. Google Sheets.

downandout 9y ago
It appears that they do. From [1]: When you visit a website that uses our advertising products (like AdSense), social products (like the +1 button), or analytics tools (Google Analytics), your web browser automatically sends certain information to Google....we may use the information we receive to, for example: Make ads more effective.... [1] https://policies.google.com/privacy/partners https://policies.google.com/privacy/partners
- cosmie 9y ago
  In this case, the "may" part in there is relevant, and not just an attempt to add in ambiguity to defuse things. The Google Analytics property owner has to explicitly opt-in to allow Google to do this. And part of that opt in includes the site owner agreeing to an addition ToS certifying that they both disclose they do so and have appropriate consent to do so. You can learn more about that at [1]. In practice, most site owners toggle this feature on without realizing the liability they've agreed to. Because it enables additional reports in GA (by merging and exposing the demographic targeting data their ad system has), as well as pushes GA data into Adwords and DoubleClick if you want to link your accounts. But, Google does keep the GA data siloed off by default. [1] https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2444872?hl=en https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2444872?hl=en
  - downandout 9y ago
    But the end result is that most GA widgets are reporting data that is being used by Google to improve ad targeting, since most site owners turn the feature on.
    - anf 9y ago
      [citation required] but even if true, getting site owners to opt-in to exchanging their user's privacy for psychographic and demographic correlations seems materially different than Facebook's "no opt out" on a relatively unrelated feature like a Like button on a 3rd party site. They used to and could again make the button work without using it to gather browsing data.

codetrotter 9y ago

> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript and third party cookies on your browser - take some personal responsibility. I tried and doing so breaks pretty much every website. Because it’s not only the tracking stuff that makes use of JavaScript and third-party cookies.

hinkley 9y ago
Ignore him. This is one of the classic responses to any challenge of the status quo. If you don’t like the way things are then you should upend your entire life, go live in a cave, subsist on bugs and stop challenging my world view. Tl;dr He was trying to sound helpful while telling you to go fuck yourself.
- downandout 9y ago
  I was doing no such thing. I was simply telling him the only realistic way to cut down on third-party tracking.
downandout 9y ago
It may, but unfortunately you have limited choices. You can also browse in an incognito window, which will at least disable tracking from session to session. However, even then your IP address is being associated with certain behaviors. The reality is that you have a choice: use the Internet and have some tracking happen, or don't use it at all. Even the GDPR doesn't stop tracking - it just requires better disclosure of it and mandates certain handling procedures for the data that is collected on the backend. If you just have a dislike for certain websites tracking you, you can use the Windows (or other) firewall to block specific domains as I stated above.
- james-mcelwain 9y ago
  Firefox has support for multiple profiles! I have a profile that I only use for Facebook, Gmail, and Twitter, and one that I use for everything else. Probably not perfect, but provides more isolation.
- 9y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

Google is awful. But so is Facebook. Shifting blame to Google in a discussion about Facebook is a distraction from the problem.

downandout 9y ago
When someone pipes up saying how terrible it is that one company is tracking people on 12% of the top websites in the world, I think it's directly relevant to point out that another one is tracking people on 75% of that same group of sites. The tracking is either an issue or it isn't, regardless of who is doing it. If it isn't, then this is a pointless discussion, and if it is, then clearly this particular discussion should primarily be about Google. Regardless, it is a moot point because third party tracking is here to stay, even under GDPR - you'll just have another message box to dismiss when browsing. My favorite so far is this one - http://prntscr.com/j67usw http://prntscr.com/j67usw . I offered a few ways to slow down that tracking above, but the only true way to not be tracked is to not use the Internet, because none of this even broaches the subject of what data ISPs collect about your behavior.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  I can appreciate that argument, and I agree with you, but I don't think that's the argument you made in your original comment. It's a good one, though.

quadrangle 9y ago

> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript I have an issue with Facebook doing this to OTHER PEOPLE and thus dramatically influencing the world I live in. I can and do block their Javascript, but that doesn't block it for others. The idea that our decisions are just independent and everyone can decide for themselves is (A) wrong in terms of how we are affected by decisions made by others (B) anti-social and (C) denies the reality of organized power. If Facebook had to just be a bunch of unorganized, separate, independent people instead of a company with organized structure, they'd not have the power they have. They have power because of their organized structure. The idea that the other side of thing (the regular citizens) should only act as isolated individuals while the companies act as enormous organized power is ridiculous.

wruza 9y ago
If it has so much influence, then it must be controlled by more powerful superiors than just that Zuck guy, isn’t it. He must be thankful for they to leave him a possibility to sell t-shirts.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  That sounds like a tautology along the lines of Creationist thinking (this is so well-designed, it must have a designer…) If there are more powerful superiors, then wouldn't the same argument apply? They must be powerful because they have superiors, etc. etc. ad absurdem… My point wasn't that any ONE person (Zuck or anyone) is all powerful or influential. The point is that SOLIDARITY i.e. ORGANIZATION itself confers power on the organization. Organized power might be distributed where no one person can dictate the organization's direction. Or it might have an all-powerful-dictator. Either way, organizing confers power to the organized entity. Corporations are powerful, even though they are constrained in various ways and the power is wielded by a mix of actors within the corporation. Consumers / citizens who each act unilaterally have less power even though their aggregate decisions can have powerful effects in the market (because they are disorganized, they can only choose from what the supply side offers, we don't get true demand-driven products). Organized power doesn't necessarily mean top-down either. See the Starfish and the Spider (book about decentralization). Decentralized entities are more persistent (no single head to cut off to kill them), but decentralized ≠ unorganized.

jacobush 9y ago

2003 called and wants it HTML back. Seriously, the web today with JavaScript disabled? Grandma configuring her what now?

oarsinsync 9y ago

75% of 100,000 is 75,000 12% of 1,000,000 is 120,000. Not advocating for one side or the other, just correcting the math. One person commented on 12% of top 1m sites. Another is commenting on 75% of top 100k sites. EDIT: Checked the source material links and GA is on 65% of the top 1m. That is definitely more, and a more useful comparison I think.