6 ms·

It's easy to mock the pettiness of all parties described here, and it's common for people on this forum to take absolutist stances with regards to privacy/adver

It's easy to mock the pettiness of all parties described here, and it's common for people on this forum to take absolutist stances with regards to privacy/advertising, but it's also important to recognize that these arguments will actually define the future of the internet for the average user. There are trillion dollar companies on both sides of the argument, and their eventual compromise will establish the defaults for billions of users. There are also two fundamental components of the Big Tech debate at odds with each other here - privacy and competition. Increasing privacy decreases competition by strengthening the Big Tech companies that engage with users at the platform/browser/OS/hardware level. See: Google's removal of third-party cookies from Chrome in the name of privacy was just blocked by EU competition regulators, because it would cripple competing advertising companies[1]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-regulators-launch-probe-into-googles-floc-plan/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-reg...

api 5y ago
> Increasing privacy decreases competitions, strengthening the Big Tech companies that engage with users at the platform/browser/OS/hardware level. What about products that people actually pay for directly instead of products that are "free" but funded under the table through surveillance and manipulation? Why can't those compete just fine?
- splitstud 5y ago
  Would be nice but they'd have to compete as beggars on gated app stores. Face it, big tech is robber baron territory.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wbl 5y ago
Users pick browsers and their OS. They don't pick the latest iteration of Bonsai Buddy.
- fouc 5y ago
  For the average users there's only two choices, Windows or Mac, and Chrome-based or Firefox (or if they're on a Mac they get Safari as a 3rd choice).
  - wbl 5y ago
    And who is going to click the "let random companies I've never heard of know every site I visit online" button?
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    The average user doesn't exist. It's an abstraction used by techies to make arguments they cannot defend.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      The average user are all those people that are yet to bother with GNU/Linux desktop, despite the exodus migrations being profethized at each macOS or Windows version.
      - howaboutnope 5y ago
        The average person has a fractional amount of children, friends, parents, even limbs. The average person exists no more than a spherical cow does.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Examples of average person as per Cambridge dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/example/english/average-person https://dictionary.cambridge.org/example/english/average-per... Apparently they exist.
        hyperman1 5y ago
        As the saying goes: The average human has 1 testicle.
3gg 5y ago
In regards to your third paragraph, to me none of that matters. Mass surveillance on the Web is wrong, period. Meanwhile, all parties involved in this drama, except for non-profits like the EFF, are instead debating how people ("users") should be best exploited online for profit, while regulators arrive late to the party and focus on other less consequential matters such as antitrust and miss the forest for the trees.
raxxorrax 5y ago
There aren't trillion dollar companies that advocate for privacy. Private data is a market, I think you know that with that username. Increasing privacy doesn't decrease competition, it would force businesses to not deal with private data. There is no conflict here. There is no net loss here aside for specialized advertisers.
- johannes1234321 5y ago
  It could even enable competition. Small companies have no chance to compete with the huge data collections of Google and friends.
jarofgreen 5y ago
> There are also two fundamental components of the Big Tech debate at odds with each other here - privacy and competition. The article explicitly talks about how this is a false dichotomy. > Regulators in the U.K., he said, had bought the ad industry's argument that privacy and competition are on a collision course. That, he said, is a false choice. "They could have required everyone to not access that data, Google included, which would have been a net benefit for competition and privacy," Soltani said.
3np 5y ago
> Google's removal of third-party cookies from Chrome in the name of privacy was just blocked by EU competition regulators, because it would cripple competing advertising companies[1]. That's not what the article is saying. The referenced EC PR[0]: "Antitrust: Commission opens investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct by Google in the online advertising technology sector". Nothing has been blocked. Restriction of third-party cookies is only one of 6 points that will be particularly looked at. This investigation may rightly so have launched at this or a later point regardless of third-party cookie restrictions in Chrome. [0]: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3143 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...

api 5y ago

> Increasing privacy decreases competitions, strengthening the Big Tech companies that engage with users at the platform/browser/OS/hardware level. What about products that people actually pay for directly instead of products that are "free" but funded under the table through surveillance and manipulation? Why can't those compete just fine?

splitstud 5y ago
Would be nice but they'd have to compete as beggars on gated app stores. Face it, big tech is robber baron territory.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wbl 5y ago

Users pick browsers and their OS. They don't pick the latest iteration of Bonsai Buddy.

fouc 5y ago
For the average users there's only two choices, Windows or Mac, and Chrome-based or Firefox (or if they're on a Mac they get Safari as a 3rd choice).
- wbl 5y ago
  And who is going to click the "let random companies I've never heard of know every site I visit online" button?
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  The average user doesn't exist. It's an abstraction used by techies to make arguments they cannot defend.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    The average user are all those people that are yet to bother with GNU/Linux desktop, despite the exodus migrations being profethized at each macOS or Windows version.
    - howaboutnope 5y ago
      The average person has a fractional amount of children, friends, parents, even limbs. The average person exists no more than a spherical cow does.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Examples of average person as per Cambridge dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/example/english/average-person https://dictionary.cambridge.org/example/english/average-per... Apparently they exist.
      - hyperman1 5y ago
        As the saying goes: The average human has 1 testicle.

3gg 5y ago

In regards to your third paragraph, to me none of that matters. Mass surveillance on the Web is wrong, period. Meanwhile, all parties involved in this drama, except for non-profits like the EFF, are instead debating how people ("users") should be best exploited online for profit, while regulators arrive late to the party and focus on other less consequential matters such as antitrust and miss the forest for the trees.

raxxorrax 5y ago

There aren't trillion dollar companies that advocate for privacy. Private data is a market, I think you know that with that username. Increasing privacy doesn't decrease competition, it would force businesses to not deal with private data. There is no conflict here. There is no net loss here aside for specialized advertisers.

johannes1234321 5y ago
It could even enable competition. Small companies have no chance to compete with the huge data collections of Google and friends.

jarofgreen 5y ago

> There are also two fundamental components of the Big Tech debate at odds with each other here - privacy and competition. The article explicitly talks about how this is a false dichotomy. > Regulators in the U.K., he said, had bought the ad industry's argument that privacy and competition are on a collision course. That, he said, is a false choice. "They could have required everyone to not access that data, Google included, which would have been a net benefit for competition and privacy," Soltani said.

3np 5y ago

> Google's removal of third-party cookies from Chrome in the name of privacy was just blocked by EU competition regulators, because it would cripple competing advertising companies[1]. That's not what the article is saying. The referenced EC PR[0]: "Antitrust: Commission opens investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct by Google in the online advertising technology sector". Nothing has been blocked. Restriction of third-party cookies is only one of 6 points that will be particularly looked at. This investigation may rightly so have launched at this or a later point regardless of third-party cookie restrictions in Chrome. [0]: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3143 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...