4 ms·

Can you cite what in the article gave you the impression this had anything to do with YouTube and not the advertisers themselves? Because from what can tell, Yo

Can you cite what in the article gave you the impression this had anything to do with YouTube and not the advertisers themselves? Because from what can tell, YouTube is relevant here only from a clickbait headline standpoint. The real issue, I guess, is that the websites themselves had tracking which was tied to the YouTube ad. I don't see what this has to do with alphabet.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
While I'm enough of an asshole to maliciously comply and copy-paste most of the article, I can't be bothered to do that. So here's two paragraphs. [Google] added that it did not have the ability to control data collection on a brand’s website after a YouTube viewer clicked on an ad. Such data-gathering, Google said, could happen when clicking on an ad on any website. Even so, ad industry veterans said they had found it difficult to prevent their clients’ YouTube ads from appearing on children’s videos, according to recent Times interviews with 10 senior employees at ad agencies and related companies. And they argued that YouTube’s ad placement had put prominent consumer brands at risk of compromising children’s privacy. The argument was already put forth that Alphabet can't control what's on the advertisers' sites. But for a company that loves hoovering up data they seem to have picked an interesting blind spot that their algorithms "can't" fine-tune for. And they of course always have the choice to not run ads for websites that deposit a deluge of trackers, but that would mean revenue down, big sad. And your rebuttal is.... a downvote. How erudite.
- deelowe 3y ago
  > And your rebuttal is.... a downvote. How erudite. No need to be presumptuous. Hackernews doesn't allow parents to downvote replies.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>YouTube is relevant here only from a clickbait headline standpoint. Huh? Why would you think it's not in Google's best interest -- from an ethical, business and perhaps legal standpoint-- to police what its advertisers do?
- deelowe 3y ago
  This isn't about what's in their best interest. Google has no way of knowing what analytics are being collected on websites they do not control.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Surprising, given they’re able to know more or less everything else about those sites. If their scraper can track Core Web Vitals why can’t it track Core Privacy Vitals? A cynic would suggest it’s because Google considers itself better off not knowing.
    - deelowe 3y ago
      So your suggestion to fix concerns with privacy and tracking is that they should do more tracking?
      - afavour 3y ago
        I’m saying it’s the approach Google takes to every other problem and it feels notable that this is the exception.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Oh so google DOESN'T have a surveillance apparatus embedded in nearly every website that exists that by design sends them as much data as possible even on third party sites? Or did you forget about Analytics.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

While I'm enough of an asshole to maliciously comply and copy-paste most of the article, I can't be bothered to do that. So here's two paragraphs. [Google] added that it did not have the ability to control data collection on a brand’s website after a YouTube viewer clicked on an ad. Such data-gathering, Google said, could happen when clicking on an ad on any website. Even so, ad industry veterans said they had found it difficult to prevent their clients’ YouTube ads from appearing on children’s videos, according to recent Times interviews with 10 senior employees at ad agencies and related companies. And they argued that YouTube’s ad placement had put prominent consumer brands at risk of compromising children’s privacy. The argument was already put forth that Alphabet can't control what's on the advertisers' sites. But for a company that loves hoovering up data they seem to have picked an interesting blind spot that their algorithms "can't" fine-tune for. And they of course always have the choice to not run ads for websites that deposit a deluge of trackers, but that would mean revenue down, big sad. And your rebuttal is.... a downvote. How erudite.

deelowe 3y ago
> And your rebuttal is.... a downvote. How erudite. No need to be presumptuous. Hackernews doesn't allow parents to downvote replies.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>YouTube is relevant here only from a clickbait headline standpoint. Huh? Why would you think it's not in Google's best interest -- from an ethical, business and perhaps legal standpoint-- to police what its advertisers do?

deelowe 3y ago
This isn't about what's in their best interest. Google has no way of knowing what analytics are being collected on websites they do not control.
- afavour 3y ago
  Surprising, given they’re able to know more or less everything else about those sites. If their scraper can track Core Web Vitals why can’t it track Core Privacy Vitals? A cynic would suggest it’s because Google considers itself better off not knowing.
  - deelowe 3y ago
    So your suggestion to fix concerns with privacy and tracking is that they should do more tracking?
    - afavour 3y ago
      I’m saying it’s the approach Google takes to every other problem and it feels notable that this is the exception.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Oh so google DOESN'T have a surveillance apparatus embedded in nearly every website that exists that by design sends them as much data as possible even on third party sites? Or did you forget about Analytics.