4 ms·

How does it benefit website owners to opt out?

cratermoon 6y ago
Let me turn the question around: to what extent are website owners who do not opt out accomplices with Google in the privacy violations implicit in their creepy surveillance profiling tech?
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  accomplices invokes images of people “in” on the conspiracy. In my rough estimation based on nothing, I’d guess most website owners have no idea this is an issue that needs fixing. Your rhetoric is inflammatory, inaccurate, and does your side of the argument harm by making the whole argument look absurd.
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  Let's rephrase that... to what extent are website owners who do not opt accomplices with Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, etc. Please also note that Firefox enables multiple telemetry features by default, such as safe browsing lists that checks links you visit presumably also tracking your URLs in the process.
  - fabrice_d 6y ago
    Please read about how safe browsing works in Firefox (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Safe_Browsing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Safe_Browsing): it's using the privacy respecting update API described at https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4/ https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4/
- PradeetPatel 6y ago
  I often think of it as: As a website owner, will partnering with Google - a market leader in the advertisement space have a direct negative impact on me and my stakeholders? If not, it has been observed that there's very little incentive to communicate that change through. As much as I'd like to believe that altruism will win in the end, it has been established that ultimately the capacity to gain materialistic advantages can often triumph over individual's judgements.
dcow 6y ago
Presumably things that promote a healthy internet also benefit website owners since their sites exist on the internet.
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  Does Firefox sending URLs you visit to a an external service not constitute as unhealthy?
  - dcow 6y ago
    You can opt out of that (or is it opt in now), too.
    - encryptluks2 6y ago
      You can opt out with Chromium too
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    "What about $otherthing?" Neither is good, but that doesn't necessarily make the topic you're attempting to pivot to relevant in this situation. Also, Cloudflare (provider of the external service you mention, assuming you're talking about DNS-over-HTTPS) definitely isn't Google. At least not yet.
    - encryptluks2 6y ago
      No, I'm talking about their browser protection feature that is supposed to check for malware and unsafe domains.
      - dcow 6y ago
        Doesn't that use a bloom filter? So in reality it’s very few if any of the urls you visit are actually sent anywhere.
- ehsankia 6y ago
supernovae 6y ago
It's tech that only benefits Google.
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  How does not opting out as a website owner benefit Google?
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    Please read TFA. It answers this question.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Doesn't it also benefit anyone who buys ads or anyone who displays ads?
  - supernovae 6y ago
    No, it benefits google and google margins only. Ads have been on a downward trend for ad partners for years, you will never see a dime from giving google more data. This FLoC network should be opt in and it should be revenue sharing for all partners that participate. We need to stop giving google all our work for free.
ComodoHacker 6y ago
It can harm them at least one way: they wouldn't be able to monetize Apple users.
- danaris 6y ago
  ...What the hell does Apple have to do with this?
JI00912 6y ago
On an individual level it doesn't. It takes time and makes such a small difference that it's pointless. Google knows this of course. The result is that they can claim people can opt out, while in practice they run a giant surveillance network.
josefx 6y ago
Say you are running a page selling car parts, but aren't paying Google to run ads. Not opting out means that your customers now get targeted ads from your competition. Unless your are paying Google large amounts of money to mainly show your ads not opting out seems like the wrong choice.

Let me turn the question around: to what extent are website owners who do not opt out accomplices with Google in the privacy violations implicit in their creepy surveillance profiling tech?

imwillofficial 6y ago
accomplices invokes images of people “in” on the conspiracy. In my rough estimation based on nothing, I’d guess most website owners have no idea this is an issue that needs fixing. Your rhetoric is inflammatory, inaccurate, and does your side of the argument harm by making the whole argument look absurd.
encryptluks2 6y ago
Let's rephrase that... to what extent are website owners who do not opt accomplices with Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, etc. Please also note that Firefox enables multiple telemetry features by default, such as safe browsing lists that checks links you visit presumably also tracking your URLs in the process.
- fabrice_d 6y ago
  Please read about how safe browsing works in Firefox (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Safe_Browsing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Safe_Browsing): it's using the privacy respecting update API described at https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4/ https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4/
PradeetPatel 6y ago
I often think of it as: As a website owner, will partnering with Google - a market leader in the advertisement space have a direct negative impact on me and my stakeholders? If not, it has been observed that there's very little incentive to communicate that change through. As much as I'd like to believe that altruism will win in the end, it has been established that ultimately the capacity to gain materialistic advantages can often triumph over individual's judgements.

dcow 6y ago

Presumably things that promote a healthy internet also benefit website owners since their sites exist on the internet.

encryptluks2 6y ago
Does Firefox sending URLs you visit to a an external service not constitute as unhealthy?
- dcow 6y ago
  You can opt out of that (or is it opt in now), too.
  - encryptluks2 6y ago
    You can opt out with Chromium too
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  "What about $otherthing?" Neither is good, but that doesn't necessarily make the topic you're attempting to pivot to relevant in this situation. Also, Cloudflare (provider of the external service you mention, assuming you're talking about DNS-over-HTTPS) definitely isn't Google. At least not yet.
  - encryptluks2 6y ago
    No, I'm talking about their browser protection feature that is supposed to check for malware and unsafe domains.
    - dcow 6y ago
      Doesn't that use a bloom filter? So in reality it’s very few if any of the urls you visit are actually sent anywhere.
ehsankia 6y ago

supernovae 6y ago

It's tech that only benefits Google.

encryptluks2 6y ago
How does not opting out as a website owner benefit Google?
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  Please read TFA. It answers this question.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Doesn't it also benefit anyone who buys ads or anyone who displays ads?
- supernovae 6y ago
  No, it benefits google and google margins only. Ads have been on a downward trend for ad partners for years, you will never see a dime from giving google more data. This FLoC network should be opt in and it should be revenue sharing for all partners that participate. We need to stop giving google all our work for free.

ComodoHacker 6y ago

It can harm them at least one way: they wouldn't be able to monetize Apple users.

danaris 6y ago
...What the hell does Apple have to do with this?

JI00912 6y ago

On an individual level it doesn't. It takes time and makes such a small difference that it's pointless. Google knows this of course. The result is that they can claim people can opt out, while in practice they run a giant surveillance network.

josefx 6y ago

Say you are running a page selling car parts, but aren't paying Google to run ads. Not opting out means that your customers now get targeted ads from your competition. Unless your are paying Google large amounts of money to mainly show your ads not opting out seems like the wrong choice.