4 ms·

Google introduces a new system for tracking Chrome browser users

35 points by dmitrygr 5y ago

ogazitt 5y ago
Google already knows everything about you. Now they get to limit how much others know about you, under the rallying cry of "preserving user privacy". They get to decide how much of your profile they disclose to advertisers. It seems like having the dominant browser by market share (where they gather browsing history), and the dominant ad platform by revenue and market share (where they sell that information), would draw regulator scrutiny?
- skywal_l 5y ago
  I don't know anything about anti-trust law and I don't like the idea of a company with that much power but what would be the basis of a regulatory action here? Google will tell you that there is no monopoly. Anyone can install firefox (with efficient ad-blockers) and use duckduckgo. Does anti-trust law goes beyond just breaking monopolies? We just saw the EU regulator get rebuffed in a case involving intel strong-arming OEM so they don't use their competitor's chip. Seems like a straightforward case, and yet...
  - shakna 5y ago
    > Does anti-trust law goes beyond just breaking monopolies? We just saw the EU regulator get rebuffed in a case involving intel strong-arming OEM so they don't use their competitor's chip. It does, but requires the legally significant hurdle of demonstrating precisely how much harm was created. You need to be able to show the kinds and amount of harm that the subject foisted upon the public, and that harm must be "significant" to the entire populace. It's a huge barrier to climb over.
  - srcreigh 5y ago
    The argument for Google not being an advertising monopoly can't be "Just don't look at ads." That's like saying hypothetical oil company has no monopoly because people can just walk. There is a hypothetical world where the advertising market is not so ruined that it's apparently a good option to completely avoid it. Maybe if there was better competition, people would not want to avoid ads.
- stackedinserter 5y ago
  > Google already knows everything about you FTFY "an average person already gives Google everything about him-/herself"
- poppytaker 5y ago
LegitShady 5y ago
I switched to Firefox about a year ago and I don't regret it.
- imcotton 5y ago
  I've switched two years ago, I'm evaluating Waterfox[1] just now. [1] https://www.waterfox.net https://www.waterfox.net
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    That looks interesting. How are you liking it so far? The idea of no telemetry is neat. I think I went through everything in Firefox to turn that stuff off.
- abeyki 5y ago
  I moved to Sidekick [1] an year ago after trying out all the major players available on the market. Best decision ever. [1] https://join.meetsidekick.com/p1zs4 https://join.meetsidekick.com/p1zs4
beardyw 5y ago
https://archive.ph/qdmkJ https://archive.ph/qdmkJ
dotcoma 5y ago
Judging by the title, it seems to me that the NYT doesn’t have a lot of love for Google anymore…

35 points by dmitrygr 5y ago

Google already knows everything about you. Now they get to limit how much others know about you, under the rallying cry of "preserving user privacy". They get to decide how much of your profile they disclose to advertisers. It seems like having the dominant browser by market share (where they gather browsing history), and the dominant ad platform by revenue and market share (where they sell that information), would draw regulator scrutiny?

skywal_l 5y ago
I don't know anything about anti-trust law and I don't like the idea of a company with that much power but what would be the basis of a regulatory action here? Google will tell you that there is no monopoly. Anyone can install firefox (with efficient ad-blockers) and use duckduckgo. Does anti-trust law goes beyond just breaking monopolies? We just saw the EU regulator get rebuffed in a case involving intel strong-arming OEM so they don't use their competitor's chip. Seems like a straightforward case, and yet...
- shakna 5y ago
  > Does anti-trust law goes beyond just breaking monopolies? We just saw the EU regulator get rebuffed in a case involving intel strong-arming OEM so they don't use their competitor's chip. It does, but requires the legally significant hurdle of demonstrating precisely how much harm was created. You need to be able to show the kinds and amount of harm that the subject foisted upon the public, and that harm must be "significant" to the entire populace. It's a huge barrier to climb over.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  The argument for Google not being an advertising monopoly can't be "Just don't look at ads." That's like saying hypothetical oil company has no monopoly because people can just walk. There is a hypothetical world where the advertising market is not so ruined that it's apparently a good option to completely avoid it. Maybe if there was better competition, people would not want to avoid ads.
stackedinserter 5y ago
> Google already knows everything about you FTFY "an average person already gives Google everything about him-/herself"
poppytaker 5y ago

LegitShady 5y ago

I switched to Firefox about a year ago and I don't regret it.

imcotton 5y ago
I've switched two years ago, I'm evaluating Waterfox[1] just now. [1] https://www.waterfox.net https://www.waterfox.net
- LegitShady 5y ago
  That looks interesting. How are you liking it so far? The idea of no telemetry is neat. I think I went through everything in Firefox to turn that stuff off.
abeyki 5y ago
I moved to Sidekick [1] an year ago after trying out all the major players available on the market. Best decision ever. [1] https://join.meetsidekick.com/p1zs4 https://join.meetsidekick.com/p1zs4

beardyw 5y ago

https://archive.ph/qdmkJ https://archive.ph/qdmkJ

dotcoma 5y ago

Judging by the title, it seems to me that the NYT doesn’t have a lot of love for Google anymore…