9 ms·

I was unaware of those optional cookie settings. When I read that second paragraph I almost left the article to make the privacy change before I realized that I

by bstar77 15y ago

I was unaware of those optional cookie settings. When I read that second paragraph I almost left the article to make the privacy change before I realized that I was already using Safari. I can almost guarantee that, if asked, most users would request that their browsing not be tracked some ad company you have no knowledge of. An interesting case where Apple's policy is far more reasonable than Google's.

bstar77 15y ago
Edit: I got a bunch of down votes. If you disagree then please comment. I will probably up vote you if you have a good point.
- stuntmouse 15y ago
  Strange. There was a comment supporting you that referred to the "Ad men" that would downvote you. That comment has completely disappeared. [Edit: bstar77 has cleared up the situation.]
- bstar77 15y ago
  @stuntmouse, I wrote that comment after the down votes, but edited it with the current text (thus the "edit" in the comment). I probably should have kept the original, but it was not why I got the down votes. That comment was actually up voted. Anyway, I'd just like to hear an opposing view as they seem to be out there.
sjs 15y ago
I have run w/ 3rd party cookies disabled in Firefox and Chrome for some years now. A few sites used to break now and then and now it's practically non-existent. It's difficult to picture many people wanting this at all. I agree with Gruber 100% on this.
- gnaffle 15y ago
  I think the biggest issue is the growing number of online publications using third party messaging / discussion forums like Facebook or disqus. AFAIK require third party cookies to work. Then again, it made me question whether it was really worth commenting on a story...
ugh 15y ago
I have had third party cookies disabled for years and only ran into problems a few times, but that was years ago. Disabling third party cookies seems like a sensible default to me. You can have an argument about which option is better and there are good arguments for either of them – but neither of the two options seems outrageous to me if you were to pick them as the default.
armandososa 15y ago
I can almost guarantee that, if asked, most users would request that their browsing not be tracked some ad company you have no knowledge of. I think that depends on how you frame the issue. "Do you want to have your privacy invaded by evil marketing companies?" vs. "Would you help Google to know you better, so it can serve you better ads?" For me, ads are a necessary evil because I don't want to ever pay for every content I consume on the internet. So, If third party cookies are used to serve me better ads, ads that actually interest me, then I'm all for it. Just this past week I finally decided to move my blog from Dreamhost to a Managed WP Hosting company, and it was all because of their ads following me all over the internet. I'm thankful to Google that it showed me those ads and not something about beer or hip-hop music or macrame or whatever I don't care for.
- raldi 15y ago
  Doesn't the Facebook "Like" button rely on this, too?
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    This just my personal opinion, but in the case of a "like" button, it relies on you having interacted with Facebook, having previously accepted their cookies. In the case of most ad networks, no one knows who they are, no individual visits their site directly. Now in the case of Google, I don't know why they couldn't just serve ads from google.com and still get around this issue, since most people would have accepted cookies from them already.
    - jonhohle 15y ago
      I meant to say, in the case of the like button, I think this is OK, since you've previously interacted with the site in question.
- megablast 15y ago
  Exactly. Having spoken a lot about these issues to regular people, I would bet most people would give up privacy for better ads. Just as most people would give up privacy for a safer world.
masklinn 15y ago
> I was unaware of those optional cookie settings. When I read that second paragraph I almost left the article to make the privacy change before I realized that I was already using Safari. Some browsers have an even tighter setting, between "first-party only" and "no cookies": prompting for every cookie being set. That's what I use in Camino. It is more expensive as I'm prompted every time I browse as site for the first time, but the default dismiss via "[ESC]" is to deny the cookie, and to set a deny rule in the browser. That way, I only accept cookies on sites in which I want to log in, and (depending on the site) sesion-only cookies of sites which require cookies.
roadnottaken 15y ago
If you frame the question as, "Would you like to continue receiving free services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, in exchange for targeted advertising?" I think most people would say yes.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >"Would you like to continue receiving free services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, in exchange for targeted advertising?" That's also a framed question, because it's a false dichotomy. You don't need targeted ads (and thus, tracking) to make money of ad income. I'm not even sure (as others have pointed out) if targeted ads are more profitable. Even assuming that non-targeted ads are less profitable than targeted ones, then so be it. I don't think that the business model and/or profit margin of a company (Google or not) is a valid argument when considering privacy, which I would consider a fundamental right.
- greedo 15y ago
  Sure, framing the question that way might garner a different result, as would framing it thus: "Would you feel comfortable giving away information regarding your online activities in exchange for free web services like Google Search, Maps, and Gmail?" Using the phrase "targeted advertising" is misleading. It's not that the advertising is targeted that people oppose, it's the insight into your online activities is exposed without you having any control over that information's use.
- batista 15y ago
  How about: "Would you like to pay $5 a month for services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, for an advertising free experience, better privacy and the entitlement to being the actual customer of Google resulting in better service and fewer surprises down the road"?

by bstar77 15y ago

bstar77 15y ago

Edit: I got a bunch of down votes. If you disagree then please comment. I will probably up vote you if you have a good point.

stuntmouse 15y ago
Strange. There was a comment supporting you that referred to the "Ad men" that would downvote you. That comment has completely disappeared. [Edit: bstar77 has cleared up the situation.]
bstar77 15y ago
@stuntmouse, I wrote that comment after the down votes, but edited it with the current text (thus the "edit" in the comment). I probably should have kept the original, but it was not why I got the down votes. That comment was actually up voted. Anyway, I'd just like to hear an opposing view as they seem to be out there.

sjs 15y ago

I have run w/ 3rd party cookies disabled in Firefox and Chrome for some years now. A few sites used to break now and then and now it's practically non-existent. It's difficult to picture many people wanting this at all. I agree with Gruber 100% on this.

gnaffle 15y ago
I think the biggest issue is the growing number of online publications using third party messaging / discussion forums like Facebook or disqus. AFAIK require third party cookies to work. Then again, it made me question whether it was really worth commenting on a story...

ugh 15y ago

I have had third party cookies disabled for years and only ran into problems a few times, but that was years ago. Disabling third party cookies seems like a sensible default to me. You can have an argument about which option is better and there are good arguments for either of them – but neither of the two options seems outrageous to me if you were to pick them as the default.

armandososa 15y ago

I can almost guarantee that, if asked, most users would request that their browsing not be tracked some ad company you have no knowledge of. I think that depends on how you frame the issue. "Do you want to have your privacy invaded by evil marketing companies?" vs. "Would you help Google to know you better, so it can serve you better ads?" For me, ads are a necessary evil because I don't want to ever pay for every content I consume on the internet. So, If third party cookies are used to serve me better ads, ads that actually interest me, then I'm all for it. Just this past week I finally decided to move my blog from Dreamhost to a Managed WP Hosting company, and it was all because of their ads following me all over the internet. I'm thankful to Google that it showed me those ads and not something about beer or hip-hop music or macrame or whatever I don't care for.

raldi 15y ago
Doesn't the Facebook "Like" button rely on this, too?
- jonhohle 15y ago
  This just my personal opinion, but in the case of a "like" button, it relies on you having interacted with Facebook, having previously accepted their cookies. In the case of most ad networks, no one knows who they are, no individual visits their site directly. Now in the case of Google, I don't know why they couldn't just serve ads from google.com and still get around this issue, since most people would have accepted cookies from them already.
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    I meant to say, in the case of the like button, I think this is OK, since you've previously interacted with the site in question.
megablast 15y ago
Exactly. Having spoken a lot about these issues to regular people, I would bet most people would give up privacy for better ads. Just as most people would give up privacy for a safer world.

masklinn 15y ago

> I was unaware of those optional cookie settings. When I read that second paragraph I almost left the article to make the privacy change before I realized that I was already using Safari. Some browsers have an even tighter setting, between "first-party only" and "no cookies": prompting for every cookie being set. That's what I use in Camino. It is more expensive as I'm prompted every time I browse as site for the first time, but the default dismiss via "[ESC]" is to deny the cookie, and to set a deny rule in the browser. That way, I only accept cookies on sites in which I want to log in, and (depending on the site) sesion-only cookies of sites which require cookies.

roadnottaken 15y ago

If you frame the question as, "Would you like to continue receiving free services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, in exchange for targeted advertising?" I think most people would say yes.

slowpoke 15y ago
>"Would you like to continue receiving free services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, in exchange for targeted advertising?" That's also a framed question, because it's a false dichotomy. You don't need targeted ads (and thus, tracking) to make money of ad income. I'm not even sure (as others have pointed out) if targeted ads are more profitable. Even assuming that non-targeted ads are less profitable than targeted ones, then so be it. I don't think that the business model and/or profit margin of a company (Google or not) is a valid argument when considering privacy, which I would consider a fundamental right.
greedo 15y ago
Sure, framing the question that way might garner a different result, as would framing it thus: "Would you feel comfortable giving away information regarding your online activities in exchange for free web services like Google Search, Maps, and Gmail?" Using the phrase "targeted advertising" is misleading. It's not that the advertising is targeted that people oppose, it's the insight into your online activities is exposed without you having any control over that information's use.
batista 15y ago
How about: "Would you like to pay $5 a month for services from Google, like Maps, Gmail, and Search, for an advertising free experience, better privacy and the entitlement to being the actual customer of Google resulting in better service and fewer surprises down the road"?