5 ms·

Do you work at Google? The reason I ask is because I fail to understand how the premise of "topics" or "floc," or whatever you want to call it, benefits anyone

Do you work at Google? The reason I ask is because I fail to understand how the premise of "topics" or "floc," or whatever you want to call it, benefits anyone other than Google shareholders and employees. Browsers don't need to be advertising machines, and the idea that somehow ads need to "work" or be "private enough" is a false premise that only exists because Google depends on tracking users so they can extract maximum prices from advertisers. The problem is not that there's a "downside" to the feature - the problem is that it exists at all.

Natuerich 3y ago
While Google does has an interest in people having a secure tool to use their services, the fundamental way Google is as accessable to everyone as it is is because of ads It's shitty. Now Google makes this shitty existing architecture better. At least I agree to the op and think this is better.
peter422 3y ago
I don’t work at Google and don’t use ad blockers because I want the sites I visit to get paid. Anyways, all things being equal, I’d prefer more relevant ads.
- userbinator 3y ago
  Drink verification can.
- type0 3y ago
  How about getting malware through ad networks?
superfrank 3y ago
I don't work at Google and never have. I'm just being realistic. Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money. I'm not saying that's good or right, but that's just how the world is. Google makes money off advertising and advertisers want to be able to target certain audiences. It's important to remember that you and I are not Google's customer in this case. We are the product. Advertisers are the customer. Google is going to give advertisers *something* to be able to target ads toward certain audiences because that's what Google's customers want and that's what they will pay for. If Google doesn't give that to them, they will take their business else where. We (Chrome users) have some say in the direction of the product because there's always the threat that Chrome users will leave en masse, but for the most part, our wants are secondary to the wants of the people who are directly giving Google money. My comment is starting from the following assumption - We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist. So my question is, are there any ways in which this is worse than the current solution (third party cookies) or are there any other alternatives that would provide Google's customers (advertisers) with similar features that are invasive to Chrome users.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  Ok, so what is the product in the case of Google? As a user I've been led to believe the product is Google Chrome, a web browser that can browse the open internet. But it seems like in Google's mind, the product is my attention, which they sell to advertisers on behalf of publishers who insert tracking code (ads) on their sites. So in effect, the previously open internet becomes a product belonging to Google, where every site with adsense on it may as well be a Google property, in the sense that it's Google who is the ultimate benefactor of the fact that I viewed multiple sites in its "network." This is a fine argument when talking about walled gardens like Facebook (setting aside for a second the issue of FB tracking pixels) - the entire site is their property, and it's their right to track me within it. But what rubs me the wrong way about Google adding tracking features to Chrome, is that they're exploiting an open platform to essentially turn it into a giant walled garden. And many publishers wouldn't necessarily be okay with this, in the sense that they're helping their competitors by leaking tracking data that ultimately leads to higher priced ads on those competing websites. But they don't have a choice because Google has an advertising monopoly. The root problem is that the leading browser is developed by the leading advertising company, even though there's no fundamental reason for the two products to be so closely coupled. As a result, malign incentives leak into the product development because unlike other browsers from companies not supported by ads, which have removed third party cookies with no adverse consequences, Chrome cannot do the same without hurting their parent business. But note how fundamentally this has no impact on the browser itself - the conundrum is an artifact of who develops the browser. In an ideal world, a web browser would be a piece of software thats either bundled with my operating system and subsidized by hardware sales of the manufacturer (as is the case with Safari and Apple), or if I wanted an alternative, an application that I could purchase with a one time payment or even a recurring fee. I would happily support the development of the product by paying for it, as I do with many products. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest that's what the Chromium tracking code is doing - it's supporting the Google monopoly, which extends far beyond just Chrome. If Google were simply a company that offered a web browser, then none of this would be an issue - third party cookies would be gone and there would be no need to add any tracking code, because removing the cookies didn't do any material harm to their business. But alas that's not the case, and we the users are left holding the bag and paying for it by letting Google and advertisers follow us around the internet.

Natuerich 3y ago

While Google does has an interest in people having a secure tool to use their services, the fundamental way Google is as accessable to everyone as it is is because of ads It's shitty. Now Google makes this shitty existing architecture better. At least I agree to the op and think this is better.

peter422 3y ago

I don’t work at Google and don’t use ad blockers because I want the sites I visit to get paid. Anyways, all things being equal, I’d prefer more relevant ads.

userbinator 3y ago
Drink verification can.
type0 3y ago
How about getting malware through ad networks?

superfrank 3y ago

I don't work at Google and never have. I'm just being realistic. Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money. I'm not saying that's good or right, but that's just how the world is. Google makes money off advertising and advertisers want to be able to target certain audiences. It's important to remember that you and I are not Google's customer in this case. We are the product. Advertisers are the customer. Google is going to give advertisers *something* to be able to target ads toward certain audiences because that's what Google's customers want and that's what they will pay for. If Google doesn't give that to them, they will take their business else where. We (Chrome users) have some say in the direction of the product because there's always the threat that Chrome users will leave en masse, but for the most part, our wants are secondary to the wants of the people who are directly giving Google money. My comment is starting from the following assumption - We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist. So my question is, are there any ways in which this is worse than the current solution (third party cookies) or are there any other alternatives that would provide Google's customers (advertisers) with similar features that are invasive to Chrome users.

TechBro8615 3y ago
Ok, so what is the product in the case of Google? As a user I've been led to believe the product is Google Chrome, a web browser that can browse the open internet. But it seems like in Google's mind, the product is my attention, which they sell to advertisers on behalf of publishers who insert tracking code (ads) on their sites. So in effect, the previously open internet becomes a product belonging to Google, where every site with adsense on it may as well be a Google property, in the sense that it's Google who is the ultimate benefactor of the fact that I viewed multiple sites in its "network." This is a fine argument when talking about walled gardens like Facebook (setting aside for a second the issue of FB tracking pixels) - the entire site is their property, and it's their right to track me within it. But what rubs me the wrong way about Google adding tracking features to Chrome, is that they're exploiting an open platform to essentially turn it into a giant walled garden. And many publishers wouldn't necessarily be okay with this, in the sense that they're helping their competitors by leaking tracking data that ultimately leads to higher priced ads on those competing websites. But they don't have a choice because Google has an advertising monopoly. The root problem is that the leading browser is developed by the leading advertising company, even though there's no fundamental reason for the two products to be so closely coupled. As a result, malign incentives leak into the product development because unlike other browsers from companies not supported by ads, which have removed third party cookies with no adverse consequences, Chrome cannot do the same without hurting their parent business. But note how fundamentally this has no impact on the browser itself - the conundrum is an artifact of who develops the browser. In an ideal world, a web browser would be a piece of software thats either bundled with my operating system and subsidized by hardware sales of the manufacturer (as is the case with Safari and Apple), or if I wanted an alternative, an application that I could purchase with a one time payment or even a recurring fee. I would happily support the development of the product by paying for it, as I do with many products. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest that's what the Chromium tracking code is doing - it's supporting the Google monopoly, which extends far beyond just Chrome. If Google were simply a company that offered a web browser, then none of this would be an issue - third party cookies would be gone and there would be no need to add any tracking code, because removing the cookies didn't do any material harm to their business. But alas that's not the case, and we the users are left holding the bag and paying for it by letting Google and advertisers follow us around the internet.