5 ms·

Keep fighting the good fight. I've been annoyed by this DDG campaign since they debuted donttrack.us. Google never took the low road in order to gain market sha

Keep fighting the good fight. I've been annoyed by this DDG campaign since they debuted donttrack.us. Google never took the low road in order to gain market share and I don't see why DDG feels the need to spread FUD. Gabriel is incredibly fortunate to have received a warm welcoming and avid following from the developer community, but he is squandering that good fortune by engaging in what is essentially a smear campaign that many of us see right through. He should stick to what makes people want to use a search engine in the first place: Outstanding search results.

eps 16y ago
Not considering the specifics of DDG billboard and the Referer angle, does it not bother you to the slightes that Google does in fact track you all over the Internet? One is basically checking in with Google everytime he visits any site that uses Analytics, embeds a YouTube video or a font from a Font Directory, or a Google-hosted Javascript snippet. Not to mention GMail. Don't know about other people but this bothers the hell out of me. So while I don't think DDG should've focused on the Referer issue, they got the core issue absoluely right. Google does in fact track everyone.
- coderdude 16y ago
  So is Facebook with their like button, AddThis with their widgets and probably dozens or even hundreds of other services people use. At this point no, I'm not worried about it.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Your not being fair in answering the question. Your answering the specific question and ignoring the intent. You say your not worried because other people track you as well. Do you mean if other people didn't track you, it wouldn't be okay?
    - coderdude 16y ago
      To be perfectly clear: I am not worried because tracking is a part of life on the Web. This isn't going to change. This isn't specific to Google. I do not care about it and I'm not worried about it.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        Would you be against tracking in real life? Cameras everyone out in public? In your home? To what degree is privacy not an issue for you? I only ask because your answers are essentially this: Tracking is okay because you are being tracked. Which, in practical terms, means little as far as opinions go. You are simply apathetic to privacy on the web.
        coderdude 16y ago
        >Tracking is okay because you are being tracked. Wrong. I never said tracking was "ok" on the merit that it's already happening. It can't be stopped and basically because we fuel it. I give the Web a lot of information about myself. From typing queries into a search engine to storing my photos, thoughts, and relationships in Facebook. I, like millions (billions, really) of other people have willingly sacrificed a certain level of privacy by using these free services who make money off our data. >Would you be against tracking in real life? Cameras everyone out in public? In your home? Tracking people with cameras, or in their homes (get real, dude) is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. I call it opt-in because you wouldn't be tracked if you didn't participate. Being watched by some government agency in your home, presumably against your will, is a far leap from here. You're really grasping at straws.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        > Wrong. I never said tracking was "ok" on the merit that it's already happening. ... snip ... Sorry. That was clearly my interpretation. Thank you for clarifying. However, I disagree on several points. First, it can be stopped to a certain degree. Just because it can't be stopped across the board doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it. An example in context to this discussion: You give Google your data. No one is arguing that choosing to give Google your data is wrong. Rather, it's that the data you gave to Google is now being given to other sites without your knowledge. > Tracking people with cameras, or in their homes (get real, dude) is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. First, "(get real, dude)". I am. Maybe you didn't hear about the case about the school district spying on students by accessing their web cams in their laptops? So these things do happen in real life. Next... > is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. You think people are aware that they are sending the resulting site specific data about their searches? Or do you think they are just assuming Google is tracking this? Do you really think people understand what companies like RapLeaf can do? Did they really opt-in? > Being watched by some government agency in your home, presumably against your will, is a far leap from here. But being tracked by businesses you never knew existed without every visiting their site isn't a far leap. > You're really grasping at straws. I'm not, really. My questions were merely that. If you took them as anything more than honest questions, it's your fault. Mostly a result of you not being clear about what your okay with being tracked. Finally, stop being antagonistic. Your insults are childish. You can disagree, but you can do so being less rude. And if you weren't aware of being rude, you were.
axod 16y ago
I agree. Attacking the market leader seems desperate to me, and I think it'll lose a lot of goodwill. You don't win customers/users by saying "Our competitor is rubbish and here's why". You win them by saying "Our product is awesome and here's why".
- kareemm 16y ago
  what he's doing is highlighting a key differentiator between their products, and trying to educate the market on why his implementation is more awesome. in other words, he's taken a page out of your "how to win customers" playbook.
  - axod 16y ago
    Not sure that worked so well for Diaspora. Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      > Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead? Apple. See Mac v.s PC TV campaign.
      - Kylekramer 16y ago
        Strange definition of ahead.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        Considering iOS devices, revenue and growth in various markets, they are ahead. Edit: Apparently someone disagrees, and thinks Apple is losing to Microsoft. I'd love to have a company lose to a rival in the same way Apple has.
      - __david__ 16y ago
ellyagg 16y ago
Uh, Gabriel made a point by point analysis of the issue, and your response is "fud" and "many of us see right through"? Can you please stick to responding to the issue and not engaging in your own contentless smear?
- coderdude 16y ago
  I'm not spreading any fear, uncertainty, or doubt with my response. In what way should this blog post rectify the view of donttrack.us and that billboard in the eyes of the people who think it's a load of crap?
- seanalltogether 16y ago
  Gabriel has been avoiding the 2 most important points though. 1. Most of this is theoretical 2. Theoretically advertisers can build profiles of you based on the web pages you visit anyway. Referer leakage or not
  - joh6nn 16y ago
    1) actually, to my understanding it's a pretty common practice. i know that i at least have been served ads based on queries i just made, or pages that i just visited. i'd be very surprised if i was the only one here on HN who has had that experience. 2) that's certainly true, but i'd say that means we should be concerned about those alternate methods as well, not that we shouldn't be concerned about this one.
    - seanalltogether 16y ago
      1. I don't doubt that google (who owns 60% of ad space online) doesn't have some kind of profiling on you already, but they don't need http referers to build that data. Hell, even the example email in the blog has nothing to do with referer tracking, unless gabriel is suggesting that wikipedia is running hidden ad trackers on their pages.
      - joh6nn 16y ago
chaostheory 16y ago
Can you list points on why it's FUD?
rickmb 16y ago
> Google never took the low road in order to gain market share Excuse me? You forgot the unwanted automatic opt-in for Google Buzz? Or doing a u-turn on net-neutrality in cahoots with Verizon? Or "accidentally" collecting wifi data? This particular issue may not fall into that category, but the days of "don't be evil" are behind us. Like most major corporations, Google puts profit before ethics.

eps 16y ago

Not considering the specifics of DDG billboard and the Referer angle, does it not bother you to the slightes that Google does in fact track you all over the Internet? One is basically checking in with Google everytime he visits any site that uses Analytics, embeds a YouTube video or a font from a Font Directory, or a Google-hosted Javascript snippet. Not to mention GMail. Don't know about other people but this bothers the hell out of me. So while I don't think DDG should've focused on the Referer issue, they got the core issue absoluely right. Google does in fact track everyone.

coderdude 16y ago
So is Facebook with their like button, AddThis with their widgets and probably dozens or even hundreds of other services people use. At this point no, I'm not worried about it.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Your not being fair in answering the question. Your answering the specific question and ignoring the intent. You say your not worried because other people track you as well. Do you mean if other people didn't track you, it wouldn't be okay?
  - coderdude 16y ago
    To be perfectly clear: I am not worried because tracking is a part of life on the Web. This isn't going to change. This isn't specific to Google. I do not care about it and I'm not worried about it.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      Would you be against tracking in real life? Cameras everyone out in public? In your home? To what degree is privacy not an issue for you? I only ask because your answers are essentially this: Tracking is okay because you are being tracked. Which, in practical terms, means little as far as opinions go. You are simply apathetic to privacy on the web.
      - coderdude 16y ago
        >Tracking is okay because you are being tracked. Wrong. I never said tracking was "ok" on the merit that it's already happening. It can't be stopped and basically because we fuel it. I give the Web a lot of information about myself. From typing queries into a search engine to storing my photos, thoughts, and relationships in Facebook. I, like millions (billions, really) of other people have willingly sacrificed a certain level of privacy by using these free services who make money off our data. >Would you be against tracking in real life? Cameras everyone out in public? In your home? Tracking people with cameras, or in their homes (get real, dude) is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. I call it opt-in because you wouldn't be tracked if you didn't participate. Being watched by some government agency in your home, presumably against your will, is a far leap from here. You're really grasping at straws.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        > Wrong. I never said tracking was "ok" on the merit that it's already happening. ... snip ... Sorry. That was clearly my interpretation. Thank you for clarifying. However, I disagree on several points. First, it can be stopped to a certain degree. Just because it can't be stopped across the board doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it. An example in context to this discussion: You give Google your data. No one is arguing that choosing to give Google your data is wrong. Rather, it's that the data you gave to Google is now being given to other sites without your knowledge. > Tracking people with cameras, or in their homes (get real, dude) is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. First, "(get real, dude)". I am. Maybe you didn't hear about the case about the school district spying on students by accessing their web cams in their laptops? So these things do happen in real life. Next... > is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. You think people are aware that they are sending the resulting site specific data about their searches? Or do you think they are just assuming Google is tracking this? Do you really think people understand what companies like RapLeaf can do? Did they really opt-in? > Being watched by some government agency in your home, presumably against your will, is a far leap from here. But being tracked by businesses you never knew existed without every visiting their site isn't a far leap. > You're really grasping at straws. I'm not, really. My questions were merely that. If you took them as anything more than honest questions, it's your fault. Mostly a result of you not being clear about what your okay with being tracked. Finally, stop being antagonistic. Your insults are childish. You can disagree, but you can do so being less rude. And if you weren't aware of being rude, you were.

axod 16y ago

I agree. Attacking the market leader seems desperate to me, and I think it'll lose a lot of goodwill. You don't win customers/users by saying "Our competitor is rubbish and here's why". You win them by saying "Our product is awesome and here's why".

kareemm 16y ago
what he's doing is highlighting a key differentiator between their products, and trying to educate the market on why his implementation is more awesome. in other words, he's taken a page out of your "how to win customers" playbook.
- axod 16y ago
  Not sure that worked so well for Diaspora. Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead? Apple. See Mac v.s PC TV campaign.
    - Kylekramer 16y ago
      Strange definition of ahead.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        Considering iOS devices, revenue and growth in various markets, they are ahead. Edit: Apparently someone disagrees, and thinks Apple is losing to Microsoft. I'd love to have a company lose to a rival in the same way Apple has.
    - __david__ 16y ago

ellyagg 16y ago

Uh, Gabriel made a point by point analysis of the issue, and your response is "fud" and "many of us see right through"? Can you please stick to responding to the issue and not engaging in your own contentless smear?

coderdude 16y ago
I'm not spreading any fear, uncertainty, or doubt with my response. In what way should this blog post rectify the view of donttrack.us and that billboard in the eyes of the people who think it's a load of crap?
seanalltogether 16y ago
Gabriel has been avoiding the 2 most important points though. 1. Most of this is theoretical 2. Theoretically advertisers can build profiles of you based on the web pages you visit anyway. Referer leakage or not
- joh6nn 16y ago
  1) actually, to my understanding it's a pretty common practice. i know that i at least have been served ads based on queries i just made, or pages that i just visited. i'd be very surprised if i was the only one here on HN who has had that experience. 2) that's certainly true, but i'd say that means we should be concerned about those alternate methods as well, not that we shouldn't be concerned about this one.
  - seanalltogether 16y ago
    1. I don't doubt that google (who owns 60% of ad space online) doesn't have some kind of profiling on you already, but they don't need http referers to build that data. Hell, even the example email in the blog has nothing to do with referer tracking, unless gabriel is suggesting that wikipedia is running hidden ad trackers on their pages.
    - joh6nn 16y ago

chaostheory 16y ago

Can you list points on why it's FUD?

rickmb 16y ago

> Google never took the low road in order to gain market share Excuse me? You forgot the unwanted automatic opt-in for Google Buzz? Or doing a u-turn on net-neutrality in cahoots with Verizon? Or "accidentally" collecting wifi data? This particular issue may not fall into that category, but the days of "don't be evil" are behind us. Like most major corporations, Google puts profit before ethics.