4 ms·

How many people have you met in your life that have told you that they want to help advertisers serve them better personally targeted ads? If the answer is a v

by Sephr 3y ago

How many people have you met in your life that have told you that they want to help advertisers serve them better personally targeted ads? If the answer is a very low number, then why is Privacy Sandbox on by default? In Chrome, none of the Privacy Sandbox APIs even respect the browser's built-in Do-Not-Track setting. Contextual ads are enough. Advertisers don't have an intrinsic right to optimally profit off my device hardware, and they should be thankful for whatever profit they do end up getting. Google's tech lead on Privacy Sandbox, Michael Kleber, says that "[…] limiting the web to contextual advertising solutions dramatically decreases the ability of web sites to fund themselves — for example, 52% less revenue for sites on average, and 62% less for news sites, according to https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-party_cookies_publisher_revenue.pdf https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-pa..., […]" 48% of current revenue is plenty. Privacy Sandbox is adtech greed forced onto users.

danpalmer 3y ago
(Entirely my personal opinion, but…) So you're sticking to third party tracking cookies? Sadly this is unlikely to be a false dichotomy, as we've already seen paywalls put up around adblockers, I expect to see the same for browsers without third party cookie support – I already have to mess with Safari on a regular basis to get websites to work because it doesn't accept them.
- Sephr 3y ago
  You just ignored all of my questions and are now insinuating that I said something implying that I am "sticking to third party tracking cookies". In case you didn't get the drift from "Advertisers don't have an intrinsic right to optimally profit off my device hardware": I block third party cookies in Chrome and use other browsers that have third-party cookies blocked by default. If you're asking about how I use third party cookies myself in my own software: I maintain a popular consent manager used all across the internet. It doesn't use third-party cookies. We're actually planning to implement Privacy Sandbox regulation capabilities so that our customers can properly gate your APIs based on tracking consent and user privacy rights (since you don't respect your own browser privacy signals). If you're asking how I will react to a web with more paywalled ad-free content: Emotions ranging from indifferent to pleased, depending on the content source. Are you aware that your coworkers have frequently claimed that Privacy Sandbox by itself somehow "enhances" ad privacy, conflating the removal of third party cookies with the introduction of Privacy Sandbox? The notice has since been removed, but I'm still waiting (likely forever) for an issue to be addressed about these fraudulent claims[1]. Nobody wants Privacy Sandbox except advertisers. 1. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1431547 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143154...
  - choppaface 3y ago
    No no, this is a Googler defending the superiority of Google’s new cookie design. You’re supposed to assume your questions were too dumb and Google has everything figured out.
- choppaface 3y ago
  No I think the notion is that users don’t like ads, so there no need for Google to re-design cookies for the web. But it’s very Google-y to assume that users actually like Google ads. Even if they’re very low-quality ads for like mail-order brides and crypto scams which are even on youtube now.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  How exactly are you going from >> Contextual ads are enough. to > So you're sticking to third party tracking cookies? ? The correct amount is zero tracking, on the basis that it's enough to know what ad goes to what page, without needing to follow the user around the web and track them individually.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    That is not an option. Competition regulators in the UK, US, and EU all made it clear that Chrome could not remove on-by-default third party cookie support without a replacement that worked well enough for other ad networks. The UK CMA did it with a formal consent decree, EU, the US states, and DOJ each "just" threatened anti-trust action if it happened. It isn't a false dichotomy; the choice really is between 3p tracking cookies vd. something like the Topics API.
    - Sephr 3y ago
      Ad networks still make 48% as much revenue on average on browsers that don't support third-party cookies. That is plenty. Users don't need to assist ad networks.
      - jsnell 3y ago
        Yes, you've repeated your opinion on that often enough that nobody doubts that it indeed is your opinion. But the fact is that the regulators covering basically all of the West don't share that opinion. In fact, they're not merely neutral on it. They have expressly forbidden Google from doing what you want. And while your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, as a practical matter what the regulators decide will trump that opinion.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      I would expect that if Google also stopped tracking users it would pass muster; the thing that's illegal is using the browser monopoly to unfairly benefit the ads side of the house. Regardless, "Google is legally obligated to not protect your privacy" is the weirdest pro-Firefox argument I've read lately, but I guess it's an acceptable conclusion.

by Sephr 3y ago

danpalmer 3y ago

(Entirely my personal opinion, but…) So you're sticking to third party tracking cookies? Sadly this is unlikely to be a false dichotomy, as we've already seen paywalls put up around adblockers, I expect to see the same for browsers without third party cookie support – I already have to mess with Safari on a regular basis to get websites to work because it doesn't accept them.

Sephr 3y ago
You just ignored all of my questions and are now insinuating that I said something implying that I am "sticking to third party tracking cookies". In case you didn't get the drift from "Advertisers don't have an intrinsic right to optimally profit off my device hardware": I block third party cookies in Chrome and use other browsers that have third-party cookies blocked by default. If you're asking about how I use third party cookies myself in my own software: I maintain a popular consent manager used all across the internet. It doesn't use third-party cookies. We're actually planning to implement Privacy Sandbox regulation capabilities so that our customers can properly gate your APIs based on tracking consent and user privacy rights (since you don't respect your own browser privacy signals). If you're asking how I will react to a web with more paywalled ad-free content: Emotions ranging from indifferent to pleased, depending on the content source. Are you aware that your coworkers have frequently claimed that Privacy Sandbox by itself somehow "enhances" ad privacy, conflating the removal of third party cookies with the introduction of Privacy Sandbox? The notice has since been removed, but I'm still waiting (likely forever) for an issue to be addressed about these fraudulent claims[1]. Nobody wants Privacy Sandbox except advertisers. 1. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1431547 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143154...
- choppaface 3y ago
  No no, this is a Googler defending the superiority of Google’s new cookie design. You’re supposed to assume your questions were too dumb and Google has everything figured out.
choppaface 3y ago
No I think the notion is that users don’t like ads, so there no need for Google to re-design cookies for the web. But it’s very Google-y to assume that users actually like Google ads. Even if they’re very low-quality ads for like mail-order brides and crypto scams which are even on youtube now.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
How exactly are you going from >> Contextual ads are enough. to > So you're sticking to third party tracking cookies? ? The correct amount is zero tracking, on the basis that it's enough to know what ad goes to what page, without needing to follow the user around the web and track them individually.
- jsnell 3y ago
  That is not an option. Competition regulators in the UK, US, and EU all made it clear that Chrome could not remove on-by-default third party cookie support without a replacement that worked well enough for other ad networks. The UK CMA did it with a formal consent decree, EU, the US states, and DOJ each "just" threatened anti-trust action if it happened. It isn't a false dichotomy; the choice really is between 3p tracking cookies vd. something like the Topics API.
  - Sephr 3y ago
    Ad networks still make 48% as much revenue on average on browsers that don't support third-party cookies. That is plenty. Users don't need to assist ad networks.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      Yes, you've repeated your opinion on that often enough that nobody doubts that it indeed is your opinion. But the fact is that the regulators covering basically all of the West don't share that opinion. In fact, they're not merely neutral on it. They have expressly forbidden Google from doing what you want. And while your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, as a practical matter what the regulators decide will trump that opinion.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    I would expect that if Google also stopped tracking users it would pass muster; the thing that's illegal is using the browser monopoly to unfairly benefit the ads side of the house. Regardless, "Google is legally obligated to not protect your privacy" is the weirdest pro-Firefox argument I've read lately, but I guess it's an acceptable conclusion.