5 ms·

Wow. "Don't be evil" is really dead and buried isn't it?

by bowlofpetunias 13y ago

NN88 13y ago
Doesn't mean we can't start looking for alternatives...
kushti 13y ago
It was dead from day 1.
ma2rten 13y ago
How exactly is this more evil than a tracking cookie? To me it sounds pretty much the same.
- stingraycharles 13y ago
  The reason, at least here in Europe, is legislation: cookies are written by the website to the user's PC. As far as I understand, this alternative doesn't write anything to a device, thus circumventing the law.
- foobarqux 13y ago
  They can't be deleted or blocked. They are not confined to one device.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sspiff 13y ago
    After reading the article, I fail to see how these are not confined to one device. basically, the article suggests that they'll add a random unique ID to the browsers' identification (I assume they're talking about the user agent). How would this spread across devices?
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      My mistake. But they are trivial to correlate and I would expect them to be correlated.
      - sspiff 13y ago
        Correlating seems very easy & likely indeed, I didn't think about that.
- gmjosack 13y ago
  If it's tied to some "anonymous identifier" in the browser it's also possible to follow you in incognito mode.
  - lotu 13y ago
    I imagine that incognito mode would use a different anonymous identifier.
bsullivan01 13y ago
Duh, it stopped when organic growth stopped. But we were stupid to have believed it in the first place. Now they are desperate: ads everywhere, penalties everywhere (makes you advertise to replace lost traffic) and so on. They still make north of 95% of their income on ads with all their supposed innovation. I don't trust them at all. On anything. I wonder what Google Search "Quality" has in store for 2013th fourth quarter.
- yuhong 13y ago
  I don't believe most of these claims, but I am linking to this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3891677&cid=44076497 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3891677&cid=44076497 An important information from the "confidential" studies here for example would be what kind of monitors were tested.
dialtone 13y ago
Read the article. This is the same thing as the IDFA but on the Chrome browser. Pretty sure you'll be able to reset its value or turn it off entirely. Most advertisers don't want to reach you if you don't want to be reached.

Wow. "Don't be evil" is really dead and buried isn't it?

NN88 13y ago

Doesn't mean we can't start looking for alternatives...

kushti 13y ago

It was dead from day 1.

ma2rten 13y ago

How exactly is this more evil than a tracking cookie? To me it sounds pretty much the same.

stingraycharles 13y ago
The reason, at least here in Europe, is legislation: cookies are written by the website to the user's PC. As far as I understand, this alternative doesn't write anything to a device, thus circumventing the law.
foobarqux 13y ago
They can't be deleted or blocked. They are not confined to one device.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sspiff 13y ago
  After reading the article, I fail to see how these are not confined to one device. basically, the article suggests that they'll add a random unique ID to the browsers' identification (I assume they're talking about the user agent). How would this spread across devices?
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    My mistake. But they are trivial to correlate and I would expect them to be correlated.
    - sspiff 13y ago
      Correlating seems very easy & likely indeed, I didn't think about that.
gmjosack 13y ago
If it's tied to some "anonymous identifier" in the browser it's also possible to follow you in incognito mode.
- lotu 13y ago
  I imagine that incognito mode would use a different anonymous identifier.

bsullivan01 13y ago

Duh, it stopped when organic growth stopped. But we were stupid to have believed it in the first place. Now they are desperate: ads everywhere, penalties everywhere (makes you advertise to replace lost traffic) and so on. They still make north of 95% of their income on ads with all their supposed innovation. I don't trust them at all. On anything. I wonder what Google Search "Quality" has in store for 2013th fourth quarter.

yuhong 13y ago
I don't believe most of these claims, but I am linking to this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3891677&cid=44076497 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3891677&cid=44076497 An important information from the "confidential" studies here for example would be what kind of monitors were tested.

dialtone 13y ago

Read the article. This is the same thing as the IDFA but on the Chrome browser. Pretty sure you'll be able to reset its value or turn it off entirely. Most advertisers don't want to reach you if you don't want to be reached.