18 ms·
This captures my feelings on the issue: > That framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not e
by dleslie 6y ago
This captures my feelings on the issue:
> That framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose between “old tracking” and “new tracking.” It’s not either-or. Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads.
I don't want to be tracked. I never have wanted to be tracked. I shouldn't have to aggressively opt-out of tracking; it should be a service one must opt-in to receive. And it's not something we can trust industry to correct properly. This is precisely the role that privacy-protecting legislation should be undertaking.
Stop spying on us, please.
- izacus 6y agoWhat's tracking in your definition here? Is counting display of an ad tracking? Load of an image on page? Is logging nginx entry for your page load tracking? Is responding with correct image for your browser user-agent tracking? I'm sometimes confused what is covered under this term and I'd kinda like to know where the line here is drawn. What exactly are we talking about here?
- dleslie 6y agoWhen site A and site B are able to communicate to each other that I am a unique individual who has a particular session or sessions open.
- michaelbuckbee 6y agoMy understanding of FLOC is that it would meet that standard. That it would independently identify you to Site A and Site B as a person in a particular cohort.
- dleslie 6y agoThat's enough information to begin to uniquely identify me, along with other commonly available factors; like GeoIP and so forth.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ChrisLomont 6y agoAnswering any packet request from your end is enough to uniquely identify you. How do you propose TCP/IP would work without unique addresses?
- dleslie 6y agoFrom my original comment: > This is precisely the role that privacy-protecting legislation should be undertaking.
- smolder 6y agoIn many cases yes, but broadly, IP address is not a basis for determining an individual. It's difficult to know it's not some other NAT'd user or dynamically assigned.
- ehsankia 6y agoAnd why is the same not true for FLoC? How come when it comes to FLoC, the bare minimum amount of information is magically enough to identify you, but when it comes to IP, you just shrug it away as it being too difficult?
- 6y ago
- dillondoyle 6y agoin addition i haven't heard that google is dramatically changing GA tracking?
- probably_wrong 6y agoI fear that your questions reduce the problem to the point where no answer is possible. Loading the Y Combinator logo in here is almost certainly not tracking, but loading an invisible, 1px-by-1px gif in an email almost certainly counts. It's missing the forest for the trees. The simplest definition of tracking I can come up with is "collect data about me that can (and often, is) used to build a profile of me and my behavior". The NGinx log could or could not be tracking, depending on whether you use it to diagnose issues ("we should optimize this picture, it's loading too slow for too many people") or to profile me ("ID 12345 uses a 56K modem, let's sell him a new one"). But no perfect definition exists because everyone has different thresholds of what they are okay with.
- izacus 6y agoIf I understand FloC correctly though, it sends your profile/tags/interesting topics from your owned client software. So this basically means that if you have a browser like Firefox, it could send a preset cohort set to server that doesn't build your tracking profile and gives you things you're interested in. To me this seems like a win? It allows you as a person to control how your ad profile is built (and if it's sent at all) and doesn't send your data to servers anymore? (Please correct me if I misunderstood the technology.)
- sodality2 6y agoIf this doesn't get taken advantage of by google, this would be awesome. I bet if a random open source project of the same kind were released, it would probably be pointed at as a reason why Google is evil ('see there are good alternatives!'). But because Google is doing it, people are (rightly) wary and (definitely not rightly) calling it evil without doing research.
- bogwog 6y ago> But because Google is doing it, people are (rightly) wary and (definitely not rightly) calling it evil without doing research. That's what happens when no one trusts you. It's human nature, and logical arguments aren't going to change that. If anything, it's a good thing for society if Google burns despite trying to do something genuinely good (not that FLoC is good), because it shows others that there are real consequences to betraying the trust of your customers. We lose one untrustworthy company today, and gain many trustworthy companies in the future. That's a net positive for society!
- sofixa 6y agoDo you use Web Monetisation ( as in, pay)? If you don't, and don't want to be tracked for ads, how do you propose things work?
- chipgap98 6y agoI would much rather pay than be tracked. Unfortunately many sites don't give me that choice.
- sofixa 6y agoIndeed, because for many of them the only option is ads, because almost nobody uses any alternatives ( the only one i know of is Web Monetization). Until it's massively used, few site owners will make the effort.
- spoonjim 6y agoThis will never happen because the people who would pay the most to avoid targeted ad tracking are the ones who are the most valuable to advertisers (essentially, people able and willing to spend money). So when you see Facebook making $20 per user or whatever and think “I’d pay $20 to avoid being tracked,” it’s actually Facebook making nothing from a ton of users, a little from a bunch of them, and a huge amount from their “whales,” and the people willing to pay to avoid being tracked are most likely in the “whales.”
- 6y ago
- an_opabinia 6y ago> I don't want to be tracked. I never have wanted to be tracked. Maybe just use Tor. > Stop spying on us, please. It was probably a mistake to equivocate the kind of data gathering that ad-tech companies do with the kind that oppressive governments do.
- dleslie 6y agoEven services that I _pay for_ block the use of VPNs and Tor; most of the common web services have begun using DroneBL or similar.
- reaperducer 6y agoMaybe just use Tor. Why should I have to jump through hoops and disguise myself? Why can't Google et.al. just respect the basic human right to privacy?
- prophesi 6y agoBut it's totally cool if we develop and sell the same tech to oppressive governments.
- AlexandrB 6y agoMeanwhile, in the "Company Gives Oppressive Government Access to User Data" thread: > Well of course $company gives $oppressive_regime access to data they collect on their users. They have to comply with local laws!
- dTal 6y ago> Maybe just use Tor. That's like diving into a conversation about CCTV proliferation with "just wear a ski mask". It's inconvenient, hinders daily activities, makes you look like a criminal, and might not even help. It's unreasonable. >It was probably a mistake to equivocate the kind of data gathering that ad-tech companies do with the kind that oppressive governments do. Given that oppressive governments can obtain the data from the ad-tech companies... no, not really.
- evrydayhustling 6y agoIt seems like FLoC could make it easier to opt out centrally rather than going through a mess of specific (dis)approvals for the specific trackers on every site. Maybe it could even be a good place for a dial - "I'll expose a 4-bit cohort, but nothing more specific." It also seems like FLoC could make it more politically viable to crack down non-consensual tracking. Publishers wouldn't be able to say "we have no choice but to deal with this [third party tracker] scum" but could continue to gate content by subscription or (consensual) FLoC as necessary for their business model. Pushing publishing and advertising towards proactive consent about targeting puts them into a dialog with the market about what's ok, instead of letting them hide behind a bunch of shifting tracker businesses.
- dleslie 6y agoIt still coerces consent with a bad default. Sites will refuse to operate unless the FLoC is enabled, or will become obnoxious to use with it disabled. However, if FLoC were disabled by default then sites would be less likely to provide an obnoxiously bad service to those with it disabled. The best default is not to track at all.
- judge2020 6y agoA lot of sites already break (sometimes in non obvious ways) with an ad blocker, so I don’t see how this changes anything.
- dleslie 6y agoBy dramatically changing the available defaults. If most browsers aggressively blocked ads then more sites would test to see if blocking ads breaks the site.
- Spivak 6y agoIf more people block ads then more effort is also devoted to circumventing ad blockers. Ad supported sites typically don’t care about the experience of viewers who aren’t revenue generating.
- freebuju 6y agoCan you go a day without the Internet? How about two days? Sadly without this tracking, the engines of the ad economy come to a stop. We have royally ducked up the ecosystem to the point where there's no fixing it. Ever. Even laws such as GDRP won't cut it, Facebook & co. are happy to flout the rules since paying the fines is worth the cost of breaking the rules. In the case of Google ad money vs Content marketing economy, it really is a case where the chicken came before the egg.
- kibwen 6y agoThis seems to imply that without ad revenue, the internet would not exist. But plenty of sites existed and still exist without the support of ad revenue. The price to host a static site is lower than it's ever been (and for sites that provide free hosting, the cost of providing that service is lower than it's ever been). If something like YouTube couldn't exist without ads, then so be it: let them move to a subscription model. There is nothing that says that we must be forced to tolerate ads in exchange for the internet, let alone ads that intentionally obliterate the human right to privacy.
- freebuju 6y agoOkay. Allow me to rephrase it. Knowing what you know about these products, can you live without Google, Youtube, Gmail for a day? This is what I refer to above when I say 'the Internet'. I reckon most people can't go a week.
- matkoniecz 6y ago> can you live without Google, Youtube, Gmail for a day? Without bug problems. Migrating away from Gmail would allow me to de it indefinitely.
- freebuju 6y agoI'm also locked in Gmail, among a couple other useful not so easily replaceable products from Google.
- grishka 6y agoAny new feature that is added to the user agent should serve or empower said user — not any other parties, including the browser maker and the advertisers. That simple.
- anoncake 6y agoAnd that's why an ad company should not be allowed to also make browsers.
- fartcannon 6y agoWe can all stop using Chrome. That'd help.
- grishka 6y agoThis kind of strategy has never ever worked because the majority of the world's population just accepts whatever is thrown at them without questioning.
- anoncake 6y agoSure. So would divine intervention. Regulation is more realistic.
- contravariant 6y agoSome well designed regulation would be nice. But just on the off chance we should probably also try frying tofu and sending it to the mozilla foundation, because we might need some divine intervention after all.
- xxpor 6y agoThat's the thing: Chrome did empower users, that's why everyone uses it! Users just want things to work, and Chrome worked better than IE and FF at the time. FF didn't get multi-process support for a decade after Chrome had it. Did this also serve Google's purposes? Of course. But that's how life works. It's a win-win for Google. Everyone complains about the evils of Google, but revealed preferences show that focusing on what people actually care about has substantial value. It's like no one follows what people say about cookie popups. Does your average non-tech user praise the EU for adding the popups and allowing opt outs? Of course not. They complain about these stupid fucking popups they have to click through on every site now!
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago<sarcasm>But what about a "free and open web".</sarcasm> These constant references to "the web" when discussing certain companies is annoying. The www does not belong to any incorporated middleman. I do not care how much traffic they are curently in control of. The www is a medium not a small, privileged group of messengers. How is this company even contemplating something like this. Answer: Because a majority of users choose a browser controlled by an advertising company. WTF. This company will no doubt exert influence/control over the "standards" process and next thing we know, every developer working on a browser will feel obligated to "implement FLoC". Maybe this is an either-or question. Who is the www for: users or advertisers. The middleman needs both. Advertisers need the middleman and users. But users do not need advertisers. And, truly, they do not need the middleman. Users are creating the content. The middleman just sits in between, spying on everything. Maybe there needs to be more than one www. Maybe there needs to be a non-commercial www for smart people.
- C19is20 6y agoDemocracy would work if I were in charge.
- frashelaw 6y agoAs long as it remains massively profitable to collect every ounce of data from us, tech corporations are going to keep doing this. Even with some existing laws, the profits are enough that they are willing to flagrantly violate these laws and simply pay meager fines. It's also unlikely that we will ever get significant legislation to protect us from this either, because all these tech profits allow big tech to buy our government, because policy is heavily swayed by corporations.
- feralimal 6y agoI absolutely agree! But, the reality we need to accept and work from is that with vested corporate interests aligning so well with intrusive governmental and military interests, nothing is going to change. Don't hold your breath for privacy protection legislation.
- charcircuit 6y agoYour browser recording history of web pages you've been and saving it locally is not someone else tracking you. Your perspective is seriously warped. Even if they were tracking you, they are doing so to give people better ads to make the world a better place.
- centimeter 6y ago> to give people better ads to make the world a better place If you say shit like this unironically, you can't ever accuse someone else of having a "warped perspective".
- charcircuit 6y agoUnrelevant ads are a waste of time and resources for all parties. Getting rid of these waste benefits all parties. It's a win-win-win situation. I believe making society more efficient makes the world a better place.
- dleslie 6y agoThe word you're looking for is "irrelevant". The technique is designed to encourage consumption. This does not necessarily make society more efficient; having frequent nags to consume product one does not need is wasteful. It's more than likely that targeted ads make humanity less efficient, due to the widespread coercion to consume products and services that are not necessary for a healthy and happy life.
- AshWolfy 6y agoAds are a waste of time and resources
- dleslie 6y ago> Even if they were tracking you, they are doing so to give people better ads to make the world a better place. They're doing it to improve their ability to coerce me to purchase products and services; not to make the world a better place. Rampant consumerism has not made the world a better place, not by a long shot.