7 ms·

> Second, blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future

> Second, blocking cookies without another way to deliver relevant ads significantly reduces publishers’ primary means of funding, which jeopardizes the future of the vibrant web. Herein lies the issue. Users blocking cookies are trying to avoid being tracked and "seeing relevant ads". Essentially, he is trying to create web standards in order to do the thing that users specifically don't want them to do. Google's business model requires Schuh to twist logic in a manner that makes it seem like it isn't so.

tomComb 7y ago
I agree that that is the crux of the matter, but I'm not sure that the two sides are irreconcilable. Google and site owners want to do targeted ads. I'm not sure that users hate targeted ads specifically. I, for one, am not a site owner myself, but I'm sympathetic enough to their need for revenue that I'm OK with targeted ads. I hate stuff like auto-play video (and am thrilled that Firefox has well and truly conquered that issue) and I'm pissed that many companies sell or leak my data but I'm not looking to reject targeted ads outright.
- jamesdwilson 7y ago
  YouTube autoplays just fine in firefox. What did you mean?
  - vmateixeira 7y ago
    And that's exactly the problem.. it used to be very hard to block just a few weeks ago.
    - jamesdwilson 7y ago
      Sorry, what do you mean? How can I block autoplaying yt vids in firefox?
      - Hitton 7y ago
        I use "Enhacer for Youtube" extension.
        vmateixeira 7y ago
        Yes, these kind of extensions just used to take advantage of the existing properties.
      - vmateixeira 7y ago
        You could get to it through about:config (so.. a little difficult for the common user to reach) media.autoplay.enabled media.autoplay.allow-muted They then changed to media.autoplay.default media.autoplay.block-webaudio media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed And removed the previous parameters, which caused the videos to start playing automatically again, until you would configure the new properties (again, only though about:config). Finally, they're now providing a menu option for achieving the same, which deserves to be applauded.
  - tomComb 7y ago
    Yes, I have allowed autoplay on the video sites, but it is now click-to-enable on all those others sites that are just using it for ads. Go to about:config in Firefox, and change "media.autoplay.allow-muted" to false. Chrome has shut down auto-play on any video with sound (excepting video specific sites) and they have a flag "Autoplay policy" which was partially successful, but not as effective as the blocking in Firefox.
- drdaeman 7y ago
  > Firefox has well and truly conquered that issue Don't worry, advertisers will catch up soon, and just bundle ads with JS-based H.264 decoder that renders to <canvas>.
Ajedi32 7y ago
Is "I don't want to see relevant ads" really the user's ultimate goal? Or is their goal actually something more like: "I don't want advertisers tracking me", and not seeing relevant ads is just a side-effect of that? It sounds to me like Google's goal here is to give users what they want (less tracking, better privacy) without hurting their ad revenue. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me, assuming they can pull it off. At the very least, it's an improvement over the status quo.
- sha666sum 7y ago
  I left out of my comment that there's significant overlap between users who block cookies and those who use adblockers. Many users simply don't want to see ads, but are subject to intrusive tracking nevertheless. However, you are right that most people would probably be fine with personalized ads if it was possible to show them without identifiable tracking. Personalizing content without identifiable tracking is a really hard issue that I'll be surprised if anyone ever manages to solve. It will also most likely involve some compromises that hurt Google's bottom line, so I think the financial incentives just aren't there for them. Given those two assumptions and Google's track record, I think it's absurd to assume that any standard they create will meaningfully improve user privacy. Also, I fear their new standards would most likely just circumvent the tools available for users to avoid tracking, as the tracking would be baked into the browser itself.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    Those are valid concerns, though at first glance it doesn't seem to me like any of Google's actual proposals[1] have those issues. In fact, FloC seems like a rather promising way to achieve "personalizing content without identifiable tracking". Perhaps that particular problem isn't as hard as you thought? [1]: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb...
    - ignoramous 7y ago
      Floc is still a surveillance machinery that comes with the usual bells and whistles like mass propaganda and behaviour control. They admit to as much in the concerns section of the readme.

tomComb 7y ago

I agree that that is the crux of the matter, but I'm not sure that the two sides are irreconcilable. Google and site owners want to do targeted ads. I'm not sure that users hate targeted ads specifically. I, for one, am not a site owner myself, but I'm sympathetic enough to their need for revenue that I'm OK with targeted ads. I hate stuff like auto-play video (and am thrilled that Firefox has well and truly conquered that issue) and I'm pissed that many companies sell or leak my data but I'm not looking to reject targeted ads outright.

jamesdwilson 7y ago
YouTube autoplays just fine in firefox. What did you mean?
- vmateixeira 7y ago
  And that's exactly the problem.. it used to be very hard to block just a few weeks ago.
  - jamesdwilson 7y ago
    Sorry, what do you mean? How can I block autoplaying yt vids in firefox?
    - Hitton 7y ago
      I use "Enhacer for Youtube" extension.
      - vmateixeira 7y ago
        Yes, these kind of extensions just used to take advantage of the existing properties.
    - vmateixeira 7y ago
      You could get to it through about:config (so.. a little difficult for the common user to reach) media.autoplay.enabled media.autoplay.allow-muted They then changed to media.autoplay.default media.autoplay.block-webaudio media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed And removed the previous parameters, which caused the videos to start playing automatically again, until you would configure the new properties (again, only though about:config). Finally, they're now providing a menu option for achieving the same, which deserves to be applauded.
- tomComb 7y ago
  Yes, I have allowed autoplay on the video sites, but it is now click-to-enable on all those others sites that are just using it for ads. Go to about:config in Firefox, and change "media.autoplay.allow-muted" to false. Chrome has shut down auto-play on any video with sound (excepting video specific sites) and they have a flag "Autoplay policy" which was partially successful, but not as effective as the blocking in Firefox.
drdaeman 7y ago
> Firefox has well and truly conquered that issue Don't worry, advertisers will catch up soon, and just bundle ads with JS-based H.264 decoder that renders to <canvas>.

Ajedi32 7y ago

Is "I don't want to see relevant ads" really the user's ultimate goal? Or is their goal actually something more like: "I don't want advertisers tracking me", and not seeing relevant ads is just a side-effect of that? It sounds to me like Google's goal here is to give users what they want (less tracking, better privacy) without hurting their ad revenue. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me, assuming they can pull it off. At the very least, it's an improvement over the status quo.

sha666sum 7y ago
I left out of my comment that there's significant overlap between users who block cookies and those who use adblockers. Many users simply don't want to see ads, but are subject to intrusive tracking nevertheless. However, you are right that most people would probably be fine with personalized ads if it was possible to show them without identifiable tracking. Personalizing content without identifiable tracking is a really hard issue that I'll be surprised if anyone ever manages to solve. It will also most likely involve some compromises that hurt Google's bottom line, so I think the financial incentives just aren't there for them. Given those two assumptions and Google's track record, I think it's absurd to assume that any standard they create will meaningfully improve user privacy. Also, I fear their new standards would most likely just circumvent the tools available for users to avoid tracking, as the tracking would be baked into the browser itself.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  Those are valid concerns, though at first glance it doesn't seem to me like any of Google's actual proposals[1] have those issues. In fact, FloC seems like a rather promising way to achieve "personalizing content without identifiable tracking". Perhaps that particular problem isn't as hard as you thought? [1]: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandbox https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb...
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    Floc is still a surveillance machinery that comes with the usual bells and whistles like mass propaganda and behaviour control. They admit to as much in the concerns section of the readme.