5 ms·

> To appreciate the absurdity of this argument [about encouraging fingerprinting], imagine the local police saying, “We see that our town has a pickpocketing pr

> To appreciate the absurdity of this argument [about encouraging fingerprinting], imagine the local police saying, “We see that our town has a pickpocketing problem. But if we crack down on pickpocketing, the pickpocketers will just switch to muggings. That would be even worse. Surely you don’t want that, do you?” Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. This sort of thing happens in real life all the time. In the debate over drug policy, one of the major arguments for legalization is that drug prohibition leads to different types of crime. On the one hand, this is a "defeatist" attitude to have about drug policy. On the other hand, the world is complicated, and sometimes we have to make compromises. The author continues: > Based on peer-reviewed research, including our own, we’re confident that fingerprinting continues to represent a small proportion of overall web tracking. And there’s no evidence of an increase in the use of fingerprinting in response to other browsers deploying cookie blocking. That's an excellent, concrete point to make about the question. But it's not "absurd" for others to have less confidence in that conclusion. It sounds like a tricky open question.

zzzcpan 7y ago
> Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. If they are not real arguments, but false dilemma kind of arguments presented specifically to push an agenda, how do you call them? You definitely can't take them at face value and provide counter arguments, you can only call them out.
ska 7y ago
> Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. I take your point, but calling people out for being disingenuous when they are, in fact, being disingenuous is not bad faith at all.
Nicksil 7y ago
It's absurd because Google knew it was absurd before including it in their article anyway.
naringas 7y ago
this is the criticized argument > large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting. With fingerprinting, developers have found ways to use tiny bits of information that vary between users, such as what device they have or what fonts they have installed to generate a unique identifier which can then be used to match a user across websites. Unlike cookies, users cannot clear their fingerprint, and therefore cannot control how their information is collected. We think this subverts user choice and is wrong. the argument claims: - people block cookies so fingerprinting methods had to be implemented - cookies, unlike fingerprinting, can be deleted - because cookies can be cleared people should just embrace them and keep their ability to choose
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Majromax 7y ago
> Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. Calling an argument 'absurd' or 'disingenuous' is not an argument, it's a conclusion. Its value lies entirely in how well the point is proven. Here, the article does a fair job of that task. It supports the idea that the argument is absurd because mitigations against browser fingerprinting are already in development, and it supports the idea that the argument is disingenuous because in a comparable situation Google itself did not deploy a privacy workaround, so it should know that fingerprinting is not a universal response.
Spooky23 7y ago
People are allowed to have editorial discretion and form opinions. It may be harsh to be dismissive of Google's claims, but Google chose to put itself in a position where they have deep, systemic conflicts of interest. When you have a company with strongest possible interest in profitable advertising, who also makes browsers, operating systems, and controls key services that are effectively chokepoints of the internet, it's not unreasonable to assume that SMEs would question your commitment to finding a solution that would hurt you. When you write an article that demonstrates that others have been able solve impossible technical problems that an engineering organization at Google cannot, it's difficult to call that "bad fath" reporting. In fact, anyone who assumes that a company will inflict harm upon its own short/mid term financial interests is clueless, because that is what management demands at any public company. If Google did something like implement strong organizational walls that isolated advertising from other lines of business, like a newspaper, perhaps I would agree with you. If Google was showing market dominance in other areas, like cloud computing, perhaps I would agree. But they do not, and in fact they are integrating components of their business more and more, and are compelled to do so by their duty to shareholders. (See Google One as an example)

zzzcpan 7y ago

> Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. If they are not real arguments, but false dilemma kind of arguments presented specifically to push an agenda, how do you call them? You definitely can't take them at face value and provide counter arguments, you can only call them out.

ska 7y ago

> Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. I take your point, but calling people out for being disingenuous when they are, in fact, being disingenuous is not bad faith at all.

Nicksil 7y ago

It's absurd because Google knew it was absurd before including it in their article anyway.

naringas 7y ago

this is the criticized argument > large scale blocking of cookies undermine people’s privacy by encouraging opaque techniques such as fingerprinting. With fingerprinting, developers have found ways to use tiny bits of information that vary between users, such as what device they have or what fonts they have installed to generate a unique identifier which can then be used to match a user across websites. Unlike cookies, users cannot clear their fingerprint, and therefore cannot control how their information is collected. We think this subverts user choice and is wrong. the argument claims: - people block cookies so fingerprinting methods had to be implemented - cookies, unlike fingerprinting, can be deleted - because cookies can be cleared people should just embrace them and keep their ability to choose

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Majromax 7y ago

> Calling arguments "absurd" or "disingenuous" is itself arguing in bad faith, and respectable publications can do better. Calling an argument 'absurd' or 'disingenuous' is not an argument, it's a conclusion. Its value lies entirely in how well the point is proven. Here, the article does a fair job of that task. It supports the idea that the argument is absurd because mitigations against browser fingerprinting are already in development, and it supports the idea that the argument is disingenuous because in a comparable situation Google itself did not deploy a privacy workaround, so it should know that fingerprinting is not a universal response.

Spooky23 7y ago

People are allowed to have editorial discretion and form opinions. It may be harsh to be dismissive of Google's claims, but Google chose to put itself in a position where they have deep, systemic conflicts of interest. When you have a company with strongest possible interest in profitable advertising, who also makes browsers, operating systems, and controls key services that are effectively chokepoints of the internet, it's not unreasonable to assume that SMEs would question your commitment to finding a solution that would hurt you. When you write an article that demonstrates that others have been able solve impossible technical problems that an engineering organization at Google cannot, it's difficult to call that "bad fath" reporting. In fact, anyone who assumes that a company will inflict harm upon its own short/mid term financial interests is clueless, because that is what management demands at any public company. If Google did something like implement strong organizational walls that isolated advertising from other lines of business, like a newspaper, perhaps I would agree with you. If Google was showing market dominance in other areas, like cloud computing, perhaps I would agree. But they do not, and in fact they are integrating components of their business more and more, and are compelled to do so by their duty to shareholders. (See Google One as an example)