5 ms·

People that want to move this discussion forward need to stop using analogies for things in the physical world, because the interactions between a website and a

People that want to move this discussion forward need to stop using analogies for things in the physical world, because the interactions between a website and a browser aren't similar enough to anything physical. Every single time someone resorts to analogy in one of these threads, it immediately and permanently devolves into an argument over the details of the analogy. Browsers run code delivered by websites. It's generally considered impolite, at least, to provide code that mines cryptocurrency on visitors' machines. Most people wouldn't defend serving up malware, either. So there is well-established precedent for arguing that there are things a website shouldn't do to its visitors. Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto miners and malware. The explosion of ad blockers on users' browsers is a direct result of websites pushing advertising tactics way too far and not putting enough effort into the safety of their visitors. Tracking scripts will be next. Firefox has a lot to gain from pushing browser features intended to make it look like a more privacy-conscious browser than Chrome; there are already extensions like Ghostery and Disconnect, and uBlock Origin blocks a number of other tracking scripts too. If website developers don't accept some kind of middle ground in this discussion, they'll be relying on their access logs for all of their data before long.

downandout 9y ago
>Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto miners and malware. That's definitely your opinion, and it is one that is not widely held. How do I know this? Because Facebook's usage - despite a deluge of recent headlines headlines that vastly overstated their privacy issues and made it the poster child for extensive tracking technologies - hasn't gone down. So, roughly 2 billion of the world's Internet users disagree with you.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware". Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter. They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday [2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I guess you can stand steadfastly behind the position that "nobody cares because there are 2 billion users", and ignore the falling metrics for user engagement [3], and the protests (see the picture at the top of [2]), and the senate hearing, and the media coverage, and the millions of Ghostery and Disconnect users who've gone to the trouble of searching for and installing extensions specifically to block tracking, and Firefox's built-in tracking protection. Sure, aside from all that, nobody cares. But this isn't an issue that's going away yet, no matter how much you want it to. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-web/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-... [2]: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-after-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-2018-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-a... [3]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings...
  - downandout 9y ago
    As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have contributed to a decline in engagement prior to the media-driven "scandal," but at least at this point the recent headlines have had no discernible impact. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of your argument. Most of the 26% of users that have installed ad blockers (including myself) have done it not so much to thwart tracking, but to put an end to the poor user experience that many intrusive ads create on web pages. Visit any local newspaper site with your ad blocker disabled to view what I'm talking about. Many sites aren't even usable without an ad blocker these days. I am in the ad blocking-for-user-experience camp...I could care less about tracking. In fact, for the ads that I do see, I like them being highly targeted. I went for years without clicking on a single ad on the web. Only in the last year or two have I found them relevant enough to click every now and then. Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks, I don't feel any violation of my privacy either. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-committee-hearing-no-facebook-user-dropoff.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-c...
    - Intermernet 9y ago
      >I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your education level, your family size and many other details.
      - downandout 9y ago
        And what exactly is wrong with that? So some marketers know that someone in the world likes to do X, lives in a certain place, likes to buy things, etc. It's not tied to your specific identity - it's just a collection of data. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
hyperdimension 9y ago
> need to stop using analogies for things in the physical world That sounds like HN to me. Nothing likes analogies like HN likes analogies. Put it this way--analogies are like cars. When they're good, they're great, but when they're bad, they're really bad.

downandout 9y ago

>Extensive tracking scripts are now falling into the same category as crypto miners and malware. That's definitely your opinion, and it is one that is not widely held. How do I know this? Because Facebook's usage - despite a deluge of recent headlines headlines that vastly overstated their privacy issues and made it the poster child for extensive tracking technologies - hasn't gone down. So, roughly 2 billion of the world's Internet users disagree with you.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it. Only 26% of web users in 2016 had installed ad blockers [1]; that doesn't mean you get to say, "74% of web users don't mind advertising and malware". Facebook announced its first net loss of North American users last quarter. They're expected to post a much larger loss during the Q1 review on Wednesday [2] as a direct result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I guess you can stand steadfastly behind the position that "nobody cares because there are 2 billion users", and ignore the falling metrics for user engagement [3], and the protests (see the picture at the top of [2]), and the senate hearing, and the media coverage, and the millions of Ghostery and Disconnect users who've gone to the trouble of searching for and installing extensions specifically to block tracking, and Firefox's built-in tracking protection. Sure, aside from all that, nobody cares. But this isn't an issue that's going away yet, no matter how much you want it to. [1]: https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-web/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blocker-change-... [2]: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-after-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-2018-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-users-want-revenge-a... [3]: http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/technology/facebook-earnings...
- downandout 9y ago
  As for your argument that Facebook usage has dropped as a result of the recent privacy outrage, it has not - at least according to Mark Zuckerberg as of April 10, 2018 [1]. Remember that the outrage of journalists - driven by a desire for clicks - is not the same as public outrage. Other factors (such as people spending more time on Instagram, or life in general) may have contributed to a decline in engagement prior to the media-driven "scandal," but at least at this point the recent headlines have had no discernible impact. We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of your argument. Most of the 26% of users that have installed ad blockers (including myself) have done it not so much to thwart tracking, but to put an end to the poor user experience that many intrusive ads create on web pages. Visit any local newspaper site with your ad blocker disabled to view what I'm talking about. Many sites aren't even usable without an ad blocker these days. I am in the ad blocking-for-user-experience camp...I could care less about tracking. In fact, for the ads that I do see, I like them being highly targeted. I went for years without clicking on a single ad on the web. Only in the last year or two have I found them relevant enough to click every now and then. Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks, I don't feel any violation of my privacy either. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-committee-hearing-no-facebook-user-dropoff.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/zuckerberg-in-joint-senate-c...
  - Intermernet 9y ago
    >I like them being highly targeted ... Since these advertisers aren't given any personally identifiable data by the ad networks The fact that the ads are highly targeted, and the fact that they are used by many companies, means that you are probably personally identifiable by correlation. They don't need your name. They probably have your locale (to a high degree of precision), your shopping habits, your sexual preference, your education level, your family size and many other details.
    - downandout 9y ago
      And what exactly is wrong with that? So some marketers know that someone in the world likes to do X, lives in a certain place, likes to buy things, etc. It's not tied to your specific identity - it's just a collection of data. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

hyperdimension 9y ago

> need to stop using analogies for things in the physical world That sounds like HN to me. Nothing likes analogies like HN likes analogies. Put it this way--analogies are like cars. When they're good, they're great, but when they're bad, they're really bad.