7 ms·

Can I get a "hell no"? Why oh why would you want to normalize anything about online advertising by standardizing it as an HTML property? Why does anyone think

Can I get a "hell no"? Why oh why would you want to normalize anything about online advertising by standardizing it as an HTML property? Why does anyone think it is the browser's responsibility to support this? If ad companies are having trouble "attributing their campaigns" or whatever - that's tough? It's their responsibility to figure it out, not browser vendors, who should be on the user's side here (c.f. user agent). This is a terrible idea, breaks the abstraction between markup and application, and should definitely not be added to HTML standard.

nicolaslem 7y ago
Because the main browser vendors are literally ad companies?
- threeseed 7y ago
  Only Google primarily is. Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla do have advertising elements but are a very minor part of their business.
CaveTech 7y ago
You're being naive. Ad companies are not having trouble attributing campaigns. The problem is that small, uncoordinated "privacy" features cause Ad Tech companies to become far more aggressive in how they track users. It's not the companies that lose here, it's you. A standardized, privacy-centric method for companies to accomplish attribution will help end the arms race and move back to a more consumer-friendly model. Small edges are worth a fortune in Ads. This is like the war on drugs. Clamping down and assuming ad companies will walk away is way too optimistic. Instead, they will move deeper into the shadows at whatever the cost.
- akersten 7y ago
  If we do standardize this, why would an ad company stop using their existing tracking? This proposal allows them to collect more data about users, not less. It's just more entropy available to them, like the DNT header. And I still don't think it's the browser's responsibility to help the ad company. This kind of stuff just doesn't belong in a markup standard. If ad company cannot exist with the way they currently track users due to GDPR or other regulations, and "need" some standard way for "privacy preserving tracking" - they can write their own browser that does it and give people incentives to use it.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    >why would an ad company stop using their existing tracking? This can be addressed in law, but technical alternatives should exist. The alternative existing will also make it easier to pass it in law.
  - CaveTech 7y ago
    This proposal collects far, far less data about about a user than any existing method. It doesn't add more entropy because any ad-tracking platform can (and does) already track this exact information. By making it a standard that actually solves the needs of advertisers, the willingness to adopt it will increase because it's simpler. That said, I think this proposal falls short of solving current tracking problems.
  - eridius 7y ago
    Safari is already trying to stop the existing tracking. This proposal allows Apple to say "look, we're giving you the actual functionality you need" and the advertisers completely lose any legitimacy whatsoever to their complaints, as all they're left with is asking for a way to violate user privacy.
- wstuartcl 7y ago
  ... I would argue that the standard by effect makes it far too easy to simply lock out attribution by normalizing the way that attribution works. It effectively makes it one super easy target for ad blockers and obfu plugins. Billions of dollars are at stake for companies that need to understand how their ads are working across ecosystems and to realize the value (or lack thereof) for media buys. Many of the sites that place media also are doing so to offset the costs for users. There are few ways to toss a grenade in this complex room that does not harm all parties and force each to defend their own needs/wants.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Except we can actually win the war on advertising if we chose to do so. Making large swathes of the back-room tactics advertisers rely on illegal is absolutely do-able and provides more value to all of us - any companies that contract with bad actors can be punished and we could move into an age where we just forget what popups even were.
  - johnfactorial 7y ago
    What we need is a new paradigm for making money on the Internet. Advertisements are psychological tricks users are forced to experience, designed to make that person think they need to spend their money on something they didn't need before they saw the ad. It's infected our news media, with ads masquerading as real news articles and news providers dripping with desperation to keep you frightened of the BREAKING IMPORTANT NEWS you MUST KNOW ABOUT right after this attempt to sell you razor blades. It's infected our social media, where avatars that bear only the slightest of photoshopped similarity to the person they claim to be pretend to live a high-life, hiding their broke reality while trying to sell you herbal detox teas produced by failing corporations. It's infected our telephone system, spammers trying to sell you a new rate on your student loan debt calling you 100 times more often than your own mother. It's infected our email system, where no client without robust spam filtering is even usable, and you will delete 100 times more emails you never wanted to get than you will receive from your best friend. Text messages. The postal system. Light polluting billboards on highways. You name it, if advertising has gotten its claws in it, it has either ruined or is ruining it. Selling ads and selling users' PII are the two primary methods by which a website makes money. Both need to die.
edmundsauto 7y ago
Not everyone shares the belief that advertising and the user's interests need be adversarial. If this represents a compromise -- user maintains privacy, advertisers get attribution -- then what is your specific objection?
- akersten 7y ago
  If we chalk up the "browser vendors should not help advertisers learn more about the user for no end-user benefit" as a difference in opinion, I specifically object to adding parameters to a markup language standard to support a domain-specific problem that a (possibly transient) industry faces. The markup language should not be facilitating this tracking, that's an application workflow - it should be way beyond the scope of concerns of the HTML. If they really wanted to standardize something, why not make a Privacy Preserving Tracking as a Service endpoint and hit it with standard snippets of JS, instead of baking this controversial junk into the browser's core.
  - comex 7y ago
    The point of this feature is to provide limited access to data that webpage JS is not normally permitted to have – namely, information about the user’s interaction with other sites. (Although data sharing between different origins is not always forbidden, Safari’s “Intelligent Tracking Prevention” tries to block it for origins that are used for tracking.) Therefore, making it an “application workflow” implemented by the page JS would not work, whether or not a remote server is involved.
  - IX-103 7y ago
    So HTML should not be concerned with supporting web application workflows? What should people be building web applications with if not HTML/CSS/etc.? If HTML doesn't support common use cases (by supporting additional markup) then everyone will have to roll their own. And if the only tools they have to do that are ugly privacy invasive monstrosities like fingerprinting, what will they use? What should replace internet advertising as a way of funding content? This is not an advertising industry problem -- it also affects publishers. Will they have to start charging everyone micropayments to view their content? How will this affect the ability of third parties to index and archive content?
lmkg 7y ago
The context for this proposal is NOT that, in a vacuum, ad-tracking is a desirable feature of HTML. The context for this proposal is Apple has already been rolling out privacy protections for Safari and iOS, other players (like Big G) have had complaints, and this proposal undercuts those complaints. It's a negotiating tool, effectively. Apple's privacy protections have made life harder for Google and other folks in the advertising space. Apple has basically tried to make it hard or impossible for anyone to stitch together user activity across different sites and build a profile of that user. Advertisers have complained about losing ad attribution, and that complaint is legitimate. But, the existing techniques that are used to measure ad attribution also allow a excessive amount of additional data to be collected. Arguably, the ad attribution angle is just a PR-friendly fig leaf over what they're really worried about, which is user profiling. So, Apple's counter-proposal: Here is a way to get ad attribution! Also, by the way, it doesn't allow user profiling, but that's ok, right? Of course it is. And now, ideally, we get to watch advertisers squirm as they try to come up with outlandish attribution scenarios that justify the collection of profiling data, while struggling to not admit what types of profiling they actually do and what fraction of their valuation that comprises.
- Despegar 7y ago
  It also makes it easier to lobby for a privacy law with teeth (which Apple should absolutely be doing if they aren't already) when you can offer a solution to politicians who might have genuine concerns about the economic impact.
  - akersten 7y ago
    I don't think we need legislation that is overly prescriptive by saying "this is the particular feature of the current web that you need to use to be privacy compliant." That's what was wrong with the cookie law, and was one of the improvements the GDPR made - it didn't prescribe any particular solution for advertisers, just told them "you can't do this kind of thing." That is the basis of a good law (prohibit a specific behavior, not the implementation thereof). In that lens though, Apple's proposal is a solution in search of legislation, which screams "regulatory capture" to me - another reason I'm against it.

nicolaslem 7y ago

Because the main browser vendors are literally ad companies?

threeseed 7y ago
Only Google primarily is. Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla do have advertising elements but are a very minor part of their business.

CaveTech 7y ago

You're being naive. Ad companies are not having trouble attributing campaigns. The problem is that small, uncoordinated "privacy" features cause Ad Tech companies to become far more aggressive in how they track users. It's not the companies that lose here, it's you. A standardized, privacy-centric method for companies to accomplish attribution will help end the arms race and move back to a more consumer-friendly model. Small edges are worth a fortune in Ads. This is like the war on drugs. Clamping down and assuming ad companies will walk away is way too optimistic. Instead, they will move deeper into the shadows at whatever the cost.

akersten 7y ago
If we do standardize this, why would an ad company stop using their existing tracking? This proposal allows them to collect more data about users, not less. It's just more entropy available to them, like the DNT header. And I still don't think it's the browser's responsibility to help the ad company. This kind of stuff just doesn't belong in a markup standard. If ad company cannot exist with the way they currently track users due to GDPR or other regulations, and "need" some standard way for "privacy preserving tracking" - they can write their own browser that does it and give people incentives to use it.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >why would an ad company stop using their existing tracking? This can be addressed in law, but technical alternatives should exist. The alternative existing will also make it easier to pass it in law.
- CaveTech 7y ago
  This proposal collects far, far less data about about a user than any existing method. It doesn't add more entropy because any ad-tracking platform can (and does) already track this exact information. By making it a standard that actually solves the needs of advertisers, the willingness to adopt it will increase because it's simpler. That said, I think this proposal falls short of solving current tracking problems.
- eridius 7y ago
  Safari is already trying to stop the existing tracking. This proposal allows Apple to say "look, we're giving you the actual functionality you need" and the advertisers completely lose any legitimacy whatsoever to their complaints, as all they're left with is asking for a way to violate user privacy.
wstuartcl 7y ago
... I would argue that the standard by effect makes it far too easy to simply lock out attribution by normalizing the way that attribution works. It effectively makes it one super easy target for ad blockers and obfu plugins. Billions of dollars are at stake for companies that need to understand how their ads are working across ecosystems and to realize the value (or lack thereof) for media buys. Many of the sites that place media also are doing so to offset the costs for users. There are few ways to toss a grenade in this complex room that does not harm all parties and force each to defend their own needs/wants.
munk-a 7y ago
Except we can actually win the war on advertising if we chose to do so. Making large swathes of the back-room tactics advertisers rely on illegal is absolutely do-able and provides more value to all of us - any companies that contract with bad actors can be punished and we could move into an age where we just forget what popups even were.
- johnfactorial 7y ago
  What we need is a new paradigm for making money on the Internet. Advertisements are psychological tricks users are forced to experience, designed to make that person think they need to spend their money on something they didn't need before they saw the ad. It's infected our news media, with ads masquerading as real news articles and news providers dripping with desperation to keep you frightened of the BREAKING IMPORTANT NEWS you MUST KNOW ABOUT right after this attempt to sell you razor blades. It's infected our social media, where avatars that bear only the slightest of photoshopped similarity to the person they claim to be pretend to live a high-life, hiding their broke reality while trying to sell you herbal detox teas produced by failing corporations. It's infected our telephone system, spammers trying to sell you a new rate on your student loan debt calling you 100 times more often than your own mother. It's infected our email system, where no client without robust spam filtering is even usable, and you will delete 100 times more emails you never wanted to get than you will receive from your best friend. Text messages. The postal system. Light polluting billboards on highways. You name it, if advertising has gotten its claws in it, it has either ruined or is ruining it. Selling ads and selling users' PII are the two primary methods by which a website makes money. Both need to die.

edmundsauto 7y ago

Not everyone shares the belief that advertising and the user's interests need be adversarial. If this represents a compromise -- user maintains privacy, advertisers get attribution -- then what is your specific objection?

akersten 7y ago
If we chalk up the "browser vendors should not help advertisers learn more about the user for no end-user benefit" as a difference in opinion, I specifically object to adding parameters to a markup language standard to support a domain-specific problem that a (possibly transient) industry faces. The markup language should not be facilitating this tracking, that's an application workflow - it should be way beyond the scope of concerns of the HTML. If they really wanted to standardize something, why not make a Privacy Preserving Tracking as a Service endpoint and hit it with standard snippets of JS, instead of baking this controversial junk into the browser's core.
- comex 7y ago
  The point of this feature is to provide limited access to data that webpage JS is not normally permitted to have – namely, information about the user’s interaction with other sites. (Although data sharing between different origins is not always forbidden, Safari’s “Intelligent Tracking Prevention” tries to block it for origins that are used for tracking.) Therefore, making it an “application workflow” implemented by the page JS would not work, whether or not a remote server is involved.
- IX-103 7y ago
  So HTML should not be concerned with supporting web application workflows? What should people be building web applications with if not HTML/CSS/etc.? If HTML doesn't support common use cases (by supporting additional markup) then everyone will have to roll their own. And if the only tools they have to do that are ugly privacy invasive monstrosities like fingerprinting, what will they use? What should replace internet advertising as a way of funding content? This is not an advertising industry problem -- it also affects publishers. Will they have to start charging everyone micropayments to view their content? How will this affect the ability of third parties to index and archive content?

lmkg 7y ago

The context for this proposal is NOT that, in a vacuum, ad-tracking is a desirable feature of HTML. The context for this proposal is Apple has already been rolling out privacy protections for Safari and iOS, other players (like Big G) have had complaints, and this proposal undercuts those complaints. It's a negotiating tool, effectively. Apple's privacy protections have made life harder for Google and other folks in the advertising space. Apple has basically tried to make it hard or impossible for anyone to stitch together user activity across different sites and build a profile of that user. Advertisers have complained about losing ad attribution, and that complaint is legitimate. But, the existing techniques that are used to measure ad attribution also allow a excessive amount of additional data to be collected. Arguably, the ad attribution angle is just a PR-friendly fig leaf over what they're really worried about, which is user profiling. So, Apple's counter-proposal: Here is a way to get ad attribution! Also, by the way, it doesn't allow user profiling, but that's ok, right? Of course it is. And now, ideally, we get to watch advertisers squirm as they try to come up with outlandish attribution scenarios that justify the collection of profiling data, while struggling to not admit what types of profiling they actually do and what fraction of their valuation that comprises.

Despegar 7y ago
It also makes it easier to lobby for a privacy law with teeth (which Apple should absolutely be doing if they aren't already) when you can offer a solution to politicians who might have genuine concerns about the economic impact.
- akersten 7y ago
  I don't think we need legislation that is overly prescriptive by saying "this is the particular feature of the current web that you need to use to be privacy compliant." That's what was wrong with the cookie law, and was one of the improvements the GDPR made - it didn't prescribe any particular solution for advertisers, just told them "you can't do this kind of thing." That is the basis of a good law (prohibit a specific behavior, not the implementation thereof). In that lens though, Apple's proposal is a solution in search of legislation, which screams "regulatory capture" to me - another reason I'm against it.