4 ms·

They don't need cookies to track you when your browser footprint is unique enough (http://panopticlick.eff.org/ http://panopticlick.eff.org/). So you still need

by tintin 15y ago

They don't need cookies to track you when your browser footprint is unique enough (http://panopticlick.eff.org/ http://panopticlick.eff.org/). So you still need a tool like Ghostery (http://www.ghostery.com/ http://www.ghostery.com/) to disable the snippets that can track you. But then again: when everybody is blocking Google and Facebook, how would they earn there money?

Steko 15y ago
"how would they earn there money?" I think that endgame is obvious, they bribe users to let them track them. Information about TV and radio habits is very lucrative for companies like Nielson -- they pay quite well for participation and diary keeping. Even taking short surveys over the phone is rewarded with $25-50+ checks. A company like Google is in a unique position to automate this process -- opt in to tracking and receive a tiny percentage of the more lucrative ads google is able to get. Win-win, tell your friends and almost everyone signs up.
AllenKids 15y ago
Well by then those dinosaurs just have to abandon their outdated business model and innovate. Just like we keep telling the MPAA/RIAA to do. I'm only half joking.
- kemiller 15y ago
  It's no joke at all. They're no more entitled to their gravy train than Hollywood is.
greedo 15y ago
Assumption: targeted advertising is more lucrative than indiscriminate advertising. (I'm not sure this is true, but it seems to be accepted common wisdom.) If I were to run FB or Google, and discovered ads of any type were being blocked, I'd naturally try to change the minds of my users the old-fashioned way: money. The problem is the entire "free through advertising" model. Once you set the price of something as "free" (ala Gmail/Google search) you have a tremendously hard time charging people for it. Sure you can provide "premium" features (ala the freemium model) but how can you do that with search?

by tintin 15y ago

Steko 15y ago

"how would they earn there money?" I think that endgame is obvious, they bribe users to let them track them. Information about TV and radio habits is very lucrative for companies like Nielson -- they pay quite well for participation and diary keeping. Even taking short surveys over the phone is rewarded with $25-50+ checks. A company like Google is in a unique position to automate this process -- opt in to tracking and receive a tiny percentage of the more lucrative ads google is able to get. Win-win, tell your friends and almost everyone signs up.

AllenKids 15y ago

Well by then those dinosaurs just have to abandon their outdated business model and innovate. Just like we keep telling the MPAA/RIAA to do. I'm only half joking.

kemiller 15y ago
It's no joke at all. They're no more entitled to their gravy train than Hollywood is.

greedo 15y ago

Assumption: targeted advertising is more lucrative than indiscriminate advertising. (I'm not sure this is true, but it seems to be accepted common wisdom.) If I were to run FB or Google, and discovered ads of any type were being blocked, I'd naturally try to change the minds of my users the old-fashioned way: money. The problem is the entire "free through advertising" model. Once you set the price of something as "free" (ala Gmail/Google search) you have a tremendously hard time charging people for it. Sure you can provide "premium" features (ala the freemium model) but how can you do that with search?