4 ms·

In other words the Chrome team doesn't care about users, it cares about ads. If it put users first, as it should, third party cookies would have been blocked a

In other words the Chrome team doesn't care about users, it cares about ads. If it put users first, as it should, third party cookies would have been blocked a long time ago and they would be working on blocking other fingerprinting techniques now. This is a great reason to not use Chrome.

jefftk 7y ago
Users don't care about ads, but users care about the things that ads fund. If publishers go out of business, users will be worse off. Do you think the browsers should block all ads by default?
- HugoDaniel 7y ago
  Yes. (i am a user; i don't presume to know what is best for others; speaking as a user that talks to others like me; i don't need to speak about 'users' as a third party entity; i am a significant sample of the set)
  - vntok 7y ago
    Are you ready to pay every website you visit, then? With actual money that you yourself own?
    - HugoDaniel 7y ago
      As if ads is the only possible business model on the web. At best the ad revenue is taking money away from other web business models by instituting that kind of mentality that drives people away from donations and paid accounts. Please, consider a paid account/membership when you read the guardian, the intercept, or look for the donation page of quality content articles in wikipedia or any of the loads of blogs written by authors with patreon accounts.
      - vntok 7y ago
        Yeah, people will not collect subscriptions to content publishers like they collect emojis on their phones. Estimate how many websites you visit each month; people would need dozens of monthly subscriptions if such a system was set up. Instead, they will rather go to and pay google news, facebook press or apple information to get all their news content. Where would money be taken away then? Content publishers.
    - smnthermes 7y ago
      Donations exist, LMAO.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - jefftk 7y ago
    Why do you think Edge, Firefox, and Safari have chosen not to block all ads by default?
    - HugoDaniel 7y ago
      Thus Spoke The Googler
    - Spivak 7y ago
      I mean MS makes money from their ad network, Firefox has always gotten their money from the largest online advertiser, and Apple can’t risk the potential lawsuit from pissed off ad networks.
- tcd 7y ago
  The web shouldn't block ads, it should block JS entirely. There should be a 'global' permission system (similar to Android) that allows me to control exactly what information websites are allowed to access from my browser. For example, I want to disable WebRTC as it can be used to collect my IP address, or disable WebGPU APIs or anything that can be used to finger print me. JS has far, far, far too much broad access to information that might seem mundane but can be used to profile a user. Android is the same - you can get the entire list of installed packages on the system and various other pieces of information to build a unique, persistable tracking ID. There's also a lack of accountability: What information is being sent to what servers? I want a detailed JSON formatted breakdown of EVERY single piece of data that is being sent from my device. I should be able to block anything that is outside my own determined comfort zone. But most OS' just make requests to US IP's without much thought now - just turn on Windows 10 in a VM and watch as it sends so many requests with no insight into the data, which many companies (including Google) don't tell you about. Ask me about a recent GDPR request to Google which I just got a generic response about (and they didn't action my request to delete information, so now I need to complain to the regulator because it was also late). So yes, blocking ALL tracking by default is sensible.
  - cageface 7y ago
    Do you hold your mobile native apps to the same standard? As a former iOS developer I guarantee you there's a lot more of your data getting collected from those than you'd think and you can't do anything about it.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  Maybe free newspapers go out, and free blog platforms go out, but that means that physical local papers don't go out of business and stop having to rely on clickbait. Losing some things means gaining others.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    Sorry, clarifying: your prediction is that if internet ads became much less valuable we would see (a) the return of paper newspaper delivery and (b) the end of clickbait?
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
      I doubt it'll go as far as that, but I'd expect at least that if people had had to pay for news all along, the news ecosystem would have been less devastated by the pay-per-click internet than they have been in reality.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  Today's ads are what we used to call "spyware" back in the day and we used to purchase dedicated antispyware products that protected against them, so yes, browsers should block malware (so ads in their current state). Browsers, after all, are user-agents designed to serve the user and not corporate interests. Technology as a whole should be there to make our lives easier, not waste our time. Publishers will not go out of business don't worry. Clickbait will die off because the cheap nasty ads that currently make it viable will disappear. Tasteful, pleasant ads tailored to the current content, negotiated directly between the publisher and the advertiser will remain, and will be harder to block because they are just content served just like the rest of the content on the page instead from a nasty ad network domain.
- Spivak 7y ago
  > Do you think the browsers should block all ads by default? Resounding yes. Such a thing would be the single greatest security improvement a browser could implement. It would also completely destroy pretty much the only vector online scammers have to reach you. Most forms of advertising are totally fine. Hell I’m even favor of targeted advertising so long as it’s targeted to the content demographics instead the literal individual following them around.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    I'm confused why you would say both that browsers should block all ads by default and that most forms of advertising are totally fine? > I’m even favor of targeted advertising so long as it’s targeted to the content demographics instead the literal individual following them around Then you might like FLoC (https://github.com/jkarlin/floc https://github.com/jkarlin/floc) and TURTLE-DOV (https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove). These are both ways of implementing targeted advertising without letting the advertiser or ad network follow you around.
    - Spivak 7y ago
      Because internet ads are not most ads. If it's attached to an ad exchange or runs any code client side we're firmly in the "not fine category." Types of ads that I don't like but I won't be up in arms about from a security perspective. * Paying for sponsored reviews. * Affiliate links and partnerships. * Paying promoters and influences to push your product. * "One way broadcasts" like billboards, commercials, magazines. * In house ads like Kroger sending you coupons based on your purchase history at Kroger. * Corporate press events like E3. * Paying to post on the community billboard. * Paying have a booth at professional/enthusiast conferences/trade shows. * Stuff like E3/NintendoDirect/PAX/BlizzCon. * Selling air time on radio, podcasts, online videos. * Sponsored articles/announcements on blogs/news sites. * Native advertising a la Buzzfeed where they would get paid to write a listical "top 10 things you should order off the secret menu at Taco Bell." * Generic direct mailings and coupon books. * Paying employees to suggest and guide customers through the sale provided they're upfront about it. I've seen Lululemon do it somewhat tastefully on Reddit when people post topics looking for recommendations. But ads that come from ad networks/exchanges are nothing like these while simultaneously being the bulk of what ad blockers actually block. So I don't see it as a contradiction. The kinds of ads that ad blockers block aren't usually these and are instead are the spyware/malware kind.
hesarenu 7y ago
Nobody cares about users else apple would have allowed users to install others browser engines.

jefftk 7y ago

Users don't care about ads, but users care about the things that ads fund. If publishers go out of business, users will be worse off. Do you think the browsers should block all ads by default?

HugoDaniel 7y ago
Yes. (i am a user; i don't presume to know what is best for others; speaking as a user that talks to others like me; i don't need to speak about 'users' as a third party entity; i am a significant sample of the set)
- vntok 7y ago
  Are you ready to pay every website you visit, then? With actual money that you yourself own?
  - HugoDaniel 7y ago
    As if ads is the only possible business model on the web. At best the ad revenue is taking money away from other web business models by instituting that kind of mentality that drives people away from donations and paid accounts. Please, consider a paid account/membership when you read the guardian, the intercept, or look for the donation page of quality content articles in wikipedia or any of the loads of blogs written by authors with patreon accounts.
    - vntok 7y ago
      Yeah, people will not collect subscriptions to content publishers like they collect emojis on their phones. Estimate how many websites you visit each month; people would need dozens of monthly subscriptions if such a system was set up. Instead, they will rather go to and pay google news, facebook press or apple information to get all their news content. Where would money be taken away then? Content publishers.
  - smnthermes 7y ago
    Donations exist, LMAO.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jefftk 7y ago
  Why do you think Edge, Firefox, and Safari have chosen not to block all ads by default?
  - HugoDaniel 7y ago
    Thus Spoke The Googler
  - Spivak 7y ago
    I mean MS makes money from their ad network, Firefox has always gotten their money from the largest online advertiser, and Apple can’t risk the potential lawsuit from pissed off ad networks.
tcd 7y ago
The web shouldn't block ads, it should block JS entirely. There should be a 'global' permission system (similar to Android) that allows me to control exactly what information websites are allowed to access from my browser. For example, I want to disable WebRTC as it can be used to collect my IP address, or disable WebGPU APIs or anything that can be used to finger print me. JS has far, far, far too much broad access to information that might seem mundane but can be used to profile a user. Android is the same - you can get the entire list of installed packages on the system and various other pieces of information to build a unique, persistable tracking ID. There's also a lack of accountability: What information is being sent to what servers? I want a detailed JSON formatted breakdown of EVERY single piece of data that is being sent from my device. I should be able to block anything that is outside my own determined comfort zone. But most OS' just make requests to US IP's without much thought now - just turn on Windows 10 in a VM and watch as it sends so many requests with no insight into the data, which many companies (including Google) don't tell you about. Ask me about a recent GDPR request to Google which I just got a generic response about (and they didn't action my request to delete information, so now I need to complain to the regulator because it was also late). So yes, blocking ALL tracking by default is sensible.
- cageface 7y ago
  Do you hold your mobile native apps to the same standard? As a former iOS developer I guarantee you there's a lot more of your data getting collected from those than you'd think and you can't do anything about it.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Maybe free newspapers go out, and free blog platforms go out, but that means that physical local papers don't go out of business and stop having to rely on clickbait. Losing some things means gaining others.
- jefftk 7y ago
  Sorry, clarifying: your prediction is that if internet ads became much less valuable we would see (a) the return of paper newspaper delivery and (b) the end of clickbait?
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    I doubt it'll go as far as that, but I'd expect at least that if people had had to pay for news all along, the news ecosystem would have been less devastated by the pay-per-click internet than they have been in reality.
Nextgrid 7y ago
Today's ads are what we used to call "spyware" back in the day and we used to purchase dedicated antispyware products that protected against them, so yes, browsers should block malware (so ads in their current state). Browsers, after all, are user-agents designed to serve the user and not corporate interests. Technology as a whole should be there to make our lives easier, not waste our time. Publishers will not go out of business don't worry. Clickbait will die off because the cheap nasty ads that currently make it viable will disappear. Tasteful, pleasant ads tailored to the current content, negotiated directly between the publisher and the advertiser will remain, and will be harder to block because they are just content served just like the rest of the content on the page instead from a nasty ad network domain.
Spivak 7y ago
> Do you think the browsers should block all ads by default? Resounding yes. Such a thing would be the single greatest security improvement a browser could implement. It would also completely destroy pretty much the only vector online scammers have to reach you. Most forms of advertising are totally fine. Hell I’m even favor of targeted advertising so long as it’s targeted to the content demographics instead the literal individual following them around.
- jefftk 7y ago
  I'm confused why you would say both that browsers should block all ads by default and that most forms of advertising are totally fine? > I’m even favor of targeted advertising so long as it’s targeted to the content demographics instead the literal individual following them around Then you might like FLoC (https://github.com/jkarlin/floc https://github.com/jkarlin/floc) and TURTLE-DOV (https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove https://github.com/michaelkleber/turtledove). These are both ways of implementing targeted advertising without letting the advertiser or ad network follow you around.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    Because internet ads are not most ads. If it's attached to an ad exchange or runs any code client side we're firmly in the "not fine category." Types of ads that I don't like but I won't be up in arms about from a security perspective. * Paying for sponsored reviews. * Affiliate links and partnerships. * Paying promoters and influences to push your product. * "One way broadcasts" like billboards, commercials, magazines. * In house ads like Kroger sending you coupons based on your purchase history at Kroger. * Corporate press events like E3. * Paying to post on the community billboard. * Paying have a booth at professional/enthusiast conferences/trade shows. * Stuff like E3/NintendoDirect/PAX/BlizzCon. * Selling air time on radio, podcasts, online videos. * Sponsored articles/announcements on blogs/news sites. * Native advertising a la Buzzfeed where they would get paid to write a listical "top 10 things you should order off the secret menu at Taco Bell." * Generic direct mailings and coupon books. * Paying employees to suggest and guide customers through the sale provided they're upfront about it. I've seen Lululemon do it somewhat tastefully on Reddit when people post topics looking for recommendations. But ads that come from ad networks/exchanges are nothing like these while simultaneously being the bulk of what ad blockers actually block. So I don't see it as a contradiction. The kinds of ads that ad blockers block aren't usually these and are instead are the spyware/malware kind.

hesarenu 7y ago

Nobody cares about users else apple would have allowed users to install others browser engines.